Sie sind auf Seite 1von 67

[

LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 1



WEEK 1 • Attached to the application were the list of names of the
association’s officers and members, signatures of the
1. SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD V. BUREAU OF attendees of the Feb 7, 2010 meetings, copies of their
LABOR RELATIONS Constitution and By-Laws.
G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015 • The application also stated that the association had a total of
Mendoza, J: 120 members.
Digest by: Garcia • DOLE then issued the corresponding certificate of registration in
favor of Samahan.
TOPIC: Definition and scope of a Labor Organization
On March 15, 2010: Respondent Hanjin Heavy Industries and
DOCTRINE: The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily Construction Co (Hanjin) filed a petition with DOLE-Pampanga praying
includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising the said right. It is for the cancellation of registration of Samahan’s association on the
self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right ground that its members did not fall under any of the types of wokers
granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such enumerated in the 2nd sentence of Art 249
a conferred right. Also inherent in the right to self-organization is the • Opined that only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers,
right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective self- employed, and those without definite employers may form
bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual a workers' association.
aid and protection. There is no provision in the Labor Code that states • It further posited that one third (1/3) of the members of the
that employees with definite employers may form, join or assist unions association had definite employers and the continued
only. existence and registration of the association would prejudice
the company's goodwill.
A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized • Hanjin also claimed that Samahan made a misrepresentation
for collective bargaining and for other legitimate purpose, while a in connection with the list of members and/or voters who took
workers' association is an organization of workers formed for the part in the ratification of their constitution and by laws in its
mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate application for registration.
purpose other than collective bargaining. • Samahan made it appear that its members were all qualified
to become members of the worker’s association.
Any labor organization which may or may not be a union may deal
with the employer. This explains why a workers' association or RULING OF THE DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR: In favor of Hanjin
organization does not always have to be a labor union and why RULING OF THE BLR: In favor of the Samahan but ordered it to drop
employer-employee collective interactions are not always collective “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name.
bargaining • It stated that the law clearly afforded the right to self-
organization to all workers including those without definite
employers.
FACTS: • As an expression of the right to self-organization, industrial,
On Feb 16, 2010: Samahan filed an application for registration of its commercial and self-employed workers could form a workers'
name “Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” with the association if they so desired but subject to the limitation that it
DOLE. was only for mutual aid and protection.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 2

• Nowhere could it be found that to form a workers' association HANJIN: posits that the members of Samahan have definite
was prohibited or that the exercise of a workers' right to self- employers, hence, they should have formed a union instead of a
organization was limited to collective bargaining. workers' association.

RULING OF THE CA: In favor of Hanjin.


• The registration of Samahan as a Legitimate Worker’s
Association was contrary to the provisions of Art 243 of the LC. ISSUES:
• It stressed that only 57 out of the 120 members were actually 1. Whether SAMAHAN’s registration was correctly cancelled on the
working in Hanjin while the phrase in the preamble of ground that it cannot form a Workers’ Association of Employees in
Samahan's Constitution and By- laws, "KAMI, ang mga HANJIN, and should have instead of formed a union. NO
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard," created an impression that 2. Whether the decision ordering the removal of the word “HANJIN” in
all its members were employees of HHIC. the name of SAMAHAN was proper, by reason of the company’s
• Such unqualified manifestation which was used in its property right over the company name “Hanjin.” YES
application for registration, was a clear proof of
misrepresentation which warranted the cancellation of HELD:
Samahan's registration.
1. NO. Samahan’s registration should not have been cancelled. As
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES provided for by both the Constitution and the Labor Code, the right to
SAMAHAN: argues that the right to form a workers' association is not self-organization includes the right to form, join or assist labor
exclusive to intermittent, ambulant and itinerant workers. organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through
• While the Labor Code allows the workers "to form, join or assist representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful
labor organizations of their own choosing" for the purpose of concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and
collective bargaining, it does not prohibit them from forming a protection.
labor organization simply for purposes of mutual aid and • This is in line with the policy of the State to foster the free and
protection. voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement
• All members of Samahan have one common place of work, as well as to make sure that workers participate in policy and
Hanjin Shipyard. decision-making processes affecting their rights, duties and
• Thus, there is no reason why they cannot use "Hanjin Shipyard" welfare.
in their name.
• Reiterates its stand that workers with a definite employer can The right to form a union or association or to self-organization
organize any association for purposes of mutual aid and comprehends two notions, to wit:
protection. Inherent in the workers' right to self-organization is its (a) the liberty or freedom, that is, the absence of restraint
right to name its own organization. which guarantees that the employee may act for himself
• Samahan referred "Hanjin Shipyard" as their common place of without being prevented by law
work. Therefore, they may adopt the same in their association's (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee may, as he
name. pleases, join or refrain from joining an association.

A labor organization is defined as "any union or association of


employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 3

bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and • What the law simply requires is that the members of the
conditions of employment." workers' association, at the very least, share the same interest.
• A labor organization has two broad rights: • The very definition of a workers' association speaks of "mutual
(1) to bargain collectively aid and protection."
(2) to deal with the employer concerning terms and conditions
of employment. Applying the foregoing in this case: The Court cannot sanction the
• To bargain collectively is a right given to a union once it opinion of the CA that Samahan should have formed a union for
registers itself with the DOLE. Dealing with the employer, on the purposes of collective bargaining instead of a workers' association
other hand, is a generic description of interaction between because the choice belonged to it.
employer and employees concerning grievances, wages, work • The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily
hours and other terms and conditions of employment, even if includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising the said
the employees' group is not registered with the DOLE. right.
• Collective bargaining is just one of the forms of employee • It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the
participation. Despite so much interest in and the promotion of exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be
collective bargaining, it is incorrect to say that it is the device compelled to exercise such a conferred right.
and no other, which secures industrial democracy. • Also inherent in the right to self-organization is the right to
• It is equally misleading to say that collective bargaining is the choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective
end-goal of employee representation. Rather, the real aim is bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing
employee participation in whatever form it may appear, mutual aid and protection.
bargaining or no bargaining, union or no union. Any labor • The right to self-organization, however, is subject to certain
organization which may or may not be a union may deal with limitations as provided by law.
the employer. • For instance, the Labor Code specifically disallows managerial
• This explains why a workers' association or organization does employees from joining, assisting or forming any labor union.
not always have to be a labor union and why employer- Meanwhile, supervisory employees, while eligible for
employee collective interactions are not always collective membership in labor organizations, are proscribed from joining
bargaining. the collective bargaining unit of the rank and file employees.
Even government employees have the right to self-
A cursory reading of the law demonstrates that a common element organization.
between unionism and the formation of Labor Management Councils • It is not, however, regarded as existing or available for
is the existence of an employer-employee relationship. purposes of collective bargaining, but simply for the
• Where neither party is an employer nor an employee of the furtherance and protection of their interests.
other, no duty to bargain collectively would exist. In the same
manner, expressed in Article 255 (now 261) is the requirement Clearly, there is nothing in the foregoing implementing rules which
that such workers be employed in the establishment before provides that workers, with definite employers, cannot form or join a
they can participate in policy and decision making processes. workers' association for mutual aid and protection.
• Section 21 thereof even broadens the coverage of workers
In contrast, the existence of employer-employee relationship is not who can form or join a workers' association.
mandatory in the formation of workers' association.
1
Rule 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 which provides: “xxx All
other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 4

• Thus, the Court agrees with Samahan's argument that the right
to form a workers' association is not exclusive to ambulant, The change of name of a labor organization shall not
intermittent and itinerant workers. affect its legal personality. All the rights and obligations of
• The option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies a labor organization under its old name shall continue to
with the workers themselves, and whether they have definite be exercised by the labor organization under its new
employers or not. name.

2. YES. As there is no provision under our labor laws which speak of the Thus, in the directive of the BLR removing the words "Hanjin Shipyard,"
use of name by a workers' association, the Court refers to the no abridgement of Samahan's right to self-organization was
Corporation Code, which governs the names of juridical persons. Sec committed.
18 of the Corporation Code provides that
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The July 4, 2013
“No corporate name may be allowed by the Securities Decision and the January 28, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
and Exchange Commission if the proposed name is are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The September 6, 2010 Resolution
identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of of the Bureau of Labor Relations, as modified by its November 28, 2011
any existing corporation or to any other name already Resolution, is REINSTATED.
protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or
contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate
name is approved, the Commission shall issue an
amended certificate of incorporation under the
amended name.”
2. KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC. V. FERRER-CALLEJA
The policy underlying the prohibition in Sec 18 against the registration G.R. No. 81883, September 23, 1992
of a corporate name which is "identical or deceptively or confusingly Davide, Jr. J
similar" to that of any existing corporation or which is "patently Digest by: OBNAMIA
deceptive" or "patently confusing" or "contrary to existing laws," is the
avoidance of fraud upon the public which would have occasion to TOPIC: Self-organization
deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and
duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration and DOCTRINE: The right to form a union or association or to self-
supervision over corporations. organization comprehends two (2) broad notions, to wit: (a) the liberty
• For the same reason, it would be misleading for the members or freedom, i.e., the absence of restraint which guarantees that the
of Samahan to use "Hanjin Shipyard" in its name as it could give employee may act for himself without being prevented by law, and
the wrong impression that all of its members are employed by (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee may, as he pleases,
Hanjin. join or refrain from joining an association.
• Further, Section 9, Rule IV of D.O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003
explicitly states:
FACTS:
employed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor • Petitioner KNITJOY had a collective bargaining agreement
organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes (CBA) with the Federation of Filipino Workers (FFW). The
except collective bargaining.”
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 5

bargaining unit covered only the regular rank-and-file 1. WON KMEU can constitute as an appropriate bargaining unit
employees of KNITJOY paid on a daily or piece-rate basis. It separate and distinct from the existing unit composed of daily
did not include regular rank-and-file office and production or piece-rate paid employees- YES
employees paid on a monthly basis 2. WON the inclusion of the monthly paid employees in the
• Prior to the expiration of the CBA the Trade Union of the coverage of the new CBA bars the certification election - NO
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed a petition for the
holding of a certification election among KNITJOY's regular HELD
rank-and-file employees paid on a daily and piece-rate basis.
• Excluded were the regular rank-and-file employees paid on a (1) ANSWER: Yes, because the KMEU represents a separate and
monthly basis. distinct bargaining unit.
• In the certification election conducted and CFW • The suggested bias of the Labor Code in favor of the one
(Confederation of Filipino Workers) emerged as the winner; company-one union policy, anchored on the greater mutual
thereafter, negotiations for a new CBA between CFW and benefits which the parties could derive, is not without
KNITJOY commenced. exceptions.
• During the pendency of the said negotiations, private • The one company-one union policy must yield to the right of
respondent KMEU (Knitjoy Monthly Employees Union), a the employees to form unions or associations for purposes not
separate union representing monthly paid empolyees, filed a contrary to law, to self-organization and to enter into collective
petition for certification election among KNITJOY's regular rank- bargaining negotiations, among others, which the Constitution
and-file monthly paid employees guarantees.
• The petition was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter.
• KMEU filed a motion to reconsider this order, which was treated LAW: Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly allows supervisory
as an appeal by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). employees who are not performing managerial functions to join, assist
• BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja, reversed the order of Med- or form their separate union but bars them from membership in a labor
Arbiter de la Cruz, allowing the certification election. organization of the rank-and-file employees. This allows more than one
• Arguments of Knitjoy the employer: union in a company
o the monthly-paid employees have the same working • This provision obviously allows more than one union to exist in a
incentives as their counterparts, the daily-paid workers; company.
• The right to form a union or association or to self-organization
o that the existing collective bargaining agent (CFW) is comprehends two (2) broad notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or
willing to include the monthly-paid employees; and freedom, i.e., the absence of restraint which guarantees that
o that out of the 212 monthly-paid employees, 116 qualify the employee may act for himself without being prevented by
as managerial employees while the rest who are law, and (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee may,
holding confidential or technical positions should as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association.
likewise be excluded. • In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Worker’s Union, the SC stated: It
o the CBA also rendered the case moot and academic is, therefore, the employee who should decide for himself
since the monthly paid employees are now included in whether he should join or not an association; and should he
the provisions of the said CBA. choose to join, he himself makes up his mind as to which
association he would join; and even after he has joined, he still
ISSUE/S: retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel his

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 6

membership with said organization at any time. Inasmuch as employees’ rights to form a union and to enter into collective
what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have bargaining negotiations.
recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is the ‘right’ to • KMEU had the unquestioned and undisputed right to seek
join associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say that certification as the exclusive bargaining representative for the
the law also imposes, in the same breath, upon the employee monthly paid rank-and-file employees; both KNITJOY and CFW
the duty to join associations. The law does not enjoin an cannot block the same.
employee to sign up with any association. • It has not been shown that KMEU was privy to this agreement.
And even if it were so, it can never bind subsequent
CONCLUSION: KMEU may legitimately represent the monthly paid federations and unions particularly private respondent-union
employees as a separate Union since the employee’s right to self- because it is a curtailment of the right to self-organization
organization shall be protected and that the labor law provisions guaranteed by the labor laws.
allows multiple unions in a company. • The monthly-paid rank-and-file employees should be allowed
to join the union of the daily-paid-rank-and-file employees of
(2) ANSWER: No, the new CBA cannot validly include KMEU and does petitioner so that they can also avail of the CBA benefits or to
not bar the holding of a certification election to determine their sole form their own rank-and-file union
bargaining agent, and the negotiation for and the execution of a • Considering that (a) the TUPAS solicited certification election
subsequent CBA was strictly confined to the rank-and-file employees who are
paid on a daily or piece-rate basis, (b) the results of the
LAW: Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor election must also necessarily confine the certified union’s
Code. Effects of early agreements.—The representation case shall not, representation to the group it represents and (c) the issue of
however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining the plight of the monthly-paid employees was still pending,
agreement registered before or during the last 60 days of a subsisting KNITJOY and CFW clearly acted with palpable bad faith and
agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. (but malice in including within the scope of the new CBA these
basically KMEU is not a party to the current CBA so it does not matter) monthly paid employees.
• In the bargaining history of KNITJOY, the CBA has been • Thus, there was a conspiracy to suppress the right of KMEU to
consistently limited to the regular rank-and-file employees paid bargain collectively and negotiate for themselves, by imposing
on a daily or piece-rate basis. On the other hand, the rank- to them a contract for the negotiation which THEY WERE NOT
and-file employees paid on a monthly basis were never GIVEN NOTICE OF and neither was they allowed to participate.
included within its scope. • The new CBA cannot validly include KMEU and does not bar
• KMEU is limited only to rank and file EEs paid on a monthly the holding of a certification election to determine their sole
basis. It does not seek to dislodge CFW as the exclusive bargaining agent, and the negotiation for and the execution
bargaining rep of KNITJOY. of a subsequent CBA between KNITJOY and the eventual
• In the elections that happened, KMEU was expressly excluded. winner in said election. Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Rules
Hence, the negotiations between CFW and KNITJOY refer Implementing the Labor Code expressly provides:
ONLY to rank and file EEs paid on a daily or piece-rate basis. • SEC. 4. Effects of early agreements.—The representation case
• Clearly, insofar as the monthly paid EES are concerned (KMEU), shall not, however, be adversely affected by a collective
KNITJOY AND CFW recognize that KMEU’s constitution of a bargaining agreement registered before or during the last 60
separate union as sole bargaining rep CAN NEITHER BE days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
PREVENTED NOR AVOIDED without infringing on these representation case.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 7

• The records disclose that the intervenors in the petition for administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through collective
certification are the KMEA-CCLU and CFW. They should be bargaining agreements.
included as among the certification election besides KMEU
and no union. The principle that employees in the civil service "cannot use
the same weapons employed by the workers in the private sector to
CONCLUSION: The existing CBA agreement does not bar the secure concessions from their employees." While employees of
certification election filed by KMEU and including the monthly paid chartered GFIs enjoy the constitutional right to bargain collectively,
employees in the coverage of the current CBA would be violative of they may only do so for non¬ economic benefits and those not fixed
their right to self-organization since they were never part of the by law, and may not resort to acts amounting to work stoppages or
negotiation neither they were represented. interruptions. There is no other way to view the GFPA, other than as a
monetary benefit collectively wrung by DBP's employees under threat
of disruption to the bank's smooth operations.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED. However, the FACTS:
challenged decision of public respondent of 1 December 1987 is • DBP (Government financial institution) faced labor unrest in 2003
modified to include in the choices for the certification election causing disruptions in bank operations. Its employees (Ees) insist
petitioner Confederation of Filipino Workers (CFW) and the Knitjoy that they be paid with benefits comprising of
Monthly Employees Association and Confederation of Citizens Labor o Amelioration Allowance (AA),
Unions (KMEU-CCLU). o Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)
o and the Bank Equity Benefit Differential Pay (BEBDP)
• There were series of conferences referred to as “Governance
forum”, between the Ees group and DBP.
• DBP’s BOD (board of directors) adopted a board reso, approving
a 1 time grant called Governance Forum Productivity Award
3. DBP v. COA (GFPA) to DBP's officers and employees. The total amount
G.R. No. 210838, July 03, 2018 distributed was PhP170,893,689.00.
TIJAM, J. • COA’s audit team looked into the legality of the GFPA à it found
Digest by: SALIVA, G.M. that the grant is w/out legal basis and recommended its refund.
• Meanwhile the EXECOM of DBP adopted another reso which
TOPIC: Labor Organizations; Covered/Not covered Employees granted payment of Amelioration allowance to bank Ees, To
(a) Government employees finally settle both the AA and GFPA issues, it will be better to pay
the AA, to be offset from the amount already paid as GFPA.
DOCTRINE: Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and • DBP in 2007 received a NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE.
other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of • COA's Legal Team:
employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the o industrial peace may not be used as a legal and sufficient
process of collective bargaining. In government employment, basis in granting monetary awards.
however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated o the GFPA partakes the nature of a compromise agreement
power, the administrative heads of government which fix the terms and circumvents the rule that only a settled claim may be a
and conditions of employment. And this is effected through statutes or subject of compromise

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 8

• On MR DBP assailed the Notice of Disallowance: that the DBP's BOD was conferred unbridled authority to fix the salaries
o payment of the GFPA was made pursuant to the power of its and
Board of Directors (BOD) to enter into a compromise
agreement for settlement of employees' claims; The policy requiring prior Presidential approval upon recommendation
o that industrial peace is a valid consideration for a from the Secretary of Budget as provided in PD 1597, with respect to
compromise agreement; and that the grant of allowances and benefits, was re-affirmed by the Congress
o the GFPA was superseded and re in 2009 through Joint Resolution No. 4, also known as the Salary
• COA’s fraud Audit office: upheld the disallowance. ruled that the Standardization Law III which provides that the "coverage, conditions
power of DBP's Board to fix the remuneration and emoluments of for the grant, including the rates of allowances, benefits, and
its officials and employees is not absolute and is subject to incentives to all government employees, shall be rationalized in
Sections 5 and 6 of (PD) No. 159717 and Section 3 of (MO) No. 20 accordance with the policies to be issued by the President upon
of the Office of the President dated June 25, 2001 requiring prior recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management."
presidential approval.
• On petition for certiorari, DBP insists: SC ruled the following:
o that under its charter, the BOD was authorized to settle its • The COA's insistence that industrial peace is not a determining
employees' claims, which it did, by way of the grant of GFPA. factor under the principles of the SSL in fixing the
o It reiterated its exemption the Salary Standardization Law compensation of DBP's employees, is correct.
(SSL). • The grant of GFPA was indeed an ultra vires act or beyond the
o DBP also maintains that the GFPA recipients and DBP authority of DBP's BOD. There was no grave abuse of discretion
Directors who approved the disbursement all acted in good on the part of COA when it disallowed the GFPA on the basis
faith; consequently, should the disallowance be upheld, they of a compromise agreement to settle a labor dispute. We thus,
may not be held liable for the return of the disallowed sustain the disallowance.
amount. • Notwithstanding the foregoing, We hold that a refund of the
GFPA would not be in order.
ISSUE/S: W/N COA acted in GADALEJ in when it disallowed the GFPA • A refund of the AA was considered proper by this Court in G.R.
on the basis that it was in the nature of a compromise agreement to No. 213126 not only on the basis of solutio indebiti, but more
settle a labor dispute, allegedly an ultra vires act of DBP's BOD? (NO.) significantly because there was a determination of bad faith
on the part of DBP's Execom. There was a finding that DBP
HELD: What made the GFPA granted by the DBP to its officers and patently disregarded DBM Budget Circular No. 2001-03 dated
employees in 2003 unique was that it was the product of a November 12, 2001 clearly prohibiting the payment of AA and
compromise arrived at after negotiations between DBP employees other inflation connected allowance.
and management referred to as a governance forum. The COA • the records of the present petition bereft of findings of bad
considered the process undertaken as labor negotiations. [FOCUS ON faith on the part of the DBP with regard to the grant of the
THE DOCTRINE] GFPA.
• It is settled that Government officials and employees who
While Sec. 13 of DBP's charter exempts it from existing laws on received benefits or allowances, which were disallowed, may
compensation and position classification, it concludes by expressly keep the amounts received if there is no finding of bad faith
stating that DBP's system of compensation shall nonetheless conform and the disbursement was made in good faith.
to the principles under the SSL. From this, there is no basis to conclude

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 9

DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, We AFFIRM the • FIRST-LINE MANAGERS — The lowest level in an organization at
Commission on Audit's disallowance of the payment of Governance which individuals are responsible for the work of others is called
Forum Productivity Award to DBP's officials and employees in the total first-line or first-level management. First-line managers direct
amount of PhP170,893,689.00. subject to the MODIFICATION that the operating employees only; they do not supervise other managers.
DBP's officials and employees are no longer required to refund the Examples of first-line managers are the "foreman" or production
said amount. supervisor in a manufacturing plant, the technical supervisor in a
research department, and the clerical supervisor in a large office.
First-level managers are often called supervisors.
• MIDDLE MANAGERS — The term middle management can refer to
more than one level in an organization. Middle managers direct
the activities of other managers and sometimes also those of
4. United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. Laguesma operating employees. Middle managers' principal responsibilities
[G.R. No. 122226. March 25, 1998.] are to direct the activities that implement their organizations'
MENDOZA, J ponente; policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with the
Digest by Espiritu capacities of their subordinates. A plant manager in an electronics
firm is an example of a middle manager.
Topic: 3. Covered/not covered employees b) Managerial and • TOP MANAGERS — Composed of a comparatively small group of
supervisory employees executives, top management is responsible for the overall
management of the organization. It establishes operating policies
Doctrine and guides the organization's interactions with its environment.
Typical titles of top managers are "chief executive officer,"
Facts: "president," and "senior vice-president ." Actual titles vary from one
• Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. organization to another and are not always a reliable guide to
• on March 20, 1995, a petition for certification election was filed membership in the highest management classification.
on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi- Cola Products
Philippines, Inc. There is a distinction between those who have the authority to devise,
• However, its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and implement and control strategic and operational policies (top and
affirmed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, on the middle managers) and those whose task is simply to ensure that such
ground that the route managers are managerial employees policies are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of an
and, therefore, ineligible for union membership under the first organization (first-level managers/supervisors). "Managerial
sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code employees" may therefore be said to fall into two distinct categories:
Issue: the "managers" per se, who compose the former group described
1. WON the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, above, and the "supervisors" who form the latter group.
Inc. are managerial employees-YES
2. WON Art. 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial employees Route Managers are Managerial Employees
from forming, joining or assisting labor unions, violates Art. III, §8 The secretary of Labor had decided that routine managers are
of the Constitution.-NO managerial employees
Held: 1. Case No. OS-MA-10-318-91, entitled Worker's Alliance Trade
Types of Manager Employee Union (WATU) v . Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.,

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 10

2. Case No. OS-A-3-71-92, entitled In Re: Petition for Direct
Certification and/or Certification Election-Route While route managers do not appear to have the power to hire and
Managers/Supervisory Employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Phils. fire people (the evidence shows that they only "recommended" or
Inc. "endorsed" the taking of disciplinary action against certain
employees), this is because this is a function of the Human Resources
Petitioner argues, in Nasipit Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations or Personnel Department of the company. And neither should it be
Commission, that these previous administrative determinations do not presumed that just because they are given set benchmarks to
have the effect of res judicata in this case, because "labor relations observe, they are ipso facto supervisors. Adequate control methods
proceedings" are "non- litigious and summary in nature without regard (as embodied in such concepts as "Management by Objectives
to legal technicalities. [MBO]" and "performance appraisals") which require a delineation of
the functions and responsibilities of managers
At the very least, the principle of finality of administrative
determination compels respect for the finding of the Secretary of Constitutionality of Art. 245
Labor that route managers are managerial employees as defined by The right guaranteed in Art. III, §8 is subject to the condition that its
law in the absence of anything to show that such determination is exercise should be for purposes "not contrary to law." In the case of
without substantial evidence to support it. Art. 245, there is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees
from forming or joining labor organizations.
DOLE's Finding that Route Managers are Managerial Employees
Supported by Substantial Evidence in the Record WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

In a four-page pamphlet, prepared by the company, called "Route


Manager Position Description,
The contents provide that the functions of a routine employee,
unlike supervisors who basically merely direct operating 5. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Department of Labor
employees in line with set tasks assigned to them, are and Employment (DOLE),Petitioner,
responsible for the success of the company's main line of vs.
business through management of their respective sales teams. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
Such management necessarily involves the planning, G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008.
direction, operation and evaluation of their individual teams Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.
and areas which the work of supervisors does not entail. Digest by: Yap

In addition, in a memo sent by the director of metro sales TOPIC: Labor Organization; Covered / Not covered employees
indicates the great latitude and discretion given to route
managers — from servicing and enhancing company goodwill DOCTRINE:
to supervising and auditing accounts, from trade (new The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the
business) development to the discipline, training and grounds of cancellation of union registration, unless such inclusion is
monitoring of performance of their respective sales teams, and due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
so forth, — if they are to fulfill the company's expectations in circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the
the "key result areas." Labor Code.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 11

certification election in view of the amendment brought about by
FACTS: D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted the phraseology in the old rule
1. KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for that “[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employee
Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining unit shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security guards;”
composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent. and

2. Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the


ground that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality because its (2) Whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can
membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees be collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election
violated Article 245 of the Labor Code, and its failure to submit its through a motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima
books of account contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Textile Manufacturing, Phils., Inc.
Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and
Employment.
HELD: The petition is imbued with merit.

3. Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWU’s legal personality defective and The key to the closure that petitioner seeks could have been Republic
dismissed its petition for certification election, stating that, Since Act (R.A.) No. 9481 [AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE WORKERS’
petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and file and supervisory CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, AMENDING FOR THE
employees, petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not attained PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE
the status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES] Sections 8 and 9
exclude the supervisory employees from it membership before it can (See NOTES)
attain the status of a legitimate labor organization.

However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007;26 hence, it
applies only to labor representation cases filed on or after said date.
4. Respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV a Petition for As the petition for certification election subject matter of the present
Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration of KFWU,13 the final petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000, R.A. No. 9481 cannot
outcome of which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the apply to it. There may have been curative labor legislations that were
records. given retrospective effect, but not the aforecited provisions of R.A. No.
9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and interests already vested
would be impaired in the process.
5. KFWU appealed to the DOLE which granted the appeal; ordered
the case be remanded to the office of origin for the immediate
conduct of certification election xxx CA reversed. MR denied. Hence, Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU of
this petition. the petition for certification election on January 24, 2000 are R.A. No.
6715, amending Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (Labor
Code), as amended, and the Rules and Regulations Implementing
ISSUE: R.A. No. 6715, as amended by Department Order No. 9, series of
(1) Whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory 1997.35
employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 12

One area of contention has been the composition of the membership bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting
of a labor organization, specifically whether there is a mingling of of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the
supervisory and rank-and-file employees and how such questioned composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the
mingling affects its legitimacy. labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the
Labor Code xxxx

Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition against the
questioned mingling in one labor organization, viz: In the case at bar, as respondent union’s membership list contains the
names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level
Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its
Sec. 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor
amended to read as follows organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality
to file a petition for certification election.

“Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was
organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997
are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules – that the petition for
organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
separate labor organizations of their own.” (Emphasis supplied) employees has not been mingled with supervisory employees – was
removed.

Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying
the exact effect any violation of the prohibition would bring about on Consequently, the Court reverses the ruling of the CA and reinstates
the legitimacy of a labor organization. that of the DOLE granting the petition for certification election of
KFWU.

Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore
in Toyota, the Court, citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended II. Now to the second issue of whether an employer like respondent
by R.A. No. 6715, held: may collaterally attack the legitimacy of a labor organization by filing
a motion to dismiss the latter’s petition for certification election.

Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of


both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a
at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such
organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the
of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The
petition for certification election for the purpose of collective choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 13

employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it Section 9. A new provision, Article 245-A is inserted into the Labor
cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion Code to read as follows:
to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some
employees participating in a petition for certification election are
actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality
to block the certification election. The employer’s only right in the “Art. 245-A. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the
proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. Bargaining Unit. – The inclusion as union members of employees
The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation
buttressed that policy even more. of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically
deemed removed from the list of membership of said union.”
(Emphasis supplied)
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The December 13,
2002 Decision and October 7, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
and the May 17, 2000 Order of Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin Moreover, under Section 4, a pending petition for cancellation of
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE,while the August 18, 2000 Decision and registration will not hinder a legitimate labor organization from
September 28, 2000 Resolution of the Department of Labor and initiating a certification election, viz:
Employment are REINSTATED.

No costs. Sec. 4. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code as
Article 238-A to read as follows:
SO ORDERED.
__________ “Art. 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. – A
NOTES: petition for cancellation of union registration shall not suspend the
proceedings for certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a
Section 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as petition for certification election.
follows:

In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the


“Art. 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor union to seek just and equitable remedies in the appropriate courts.”
Organization; Right of Supervisory Employees. – Managerial employees (Emphasis supplied)
are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the
collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, Furthermore, under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9481, employers have no
assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate personality to interfere with or thwart a petition for certification
labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the election filed by a legitimate labor organization, to wit:
supervisors’ union operating within the same establishment may join
the same federation or national union.”
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the Labor
Code to read as follows:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 14

• Pet SMC supervisors and exempt employees Union filed a
“Art. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. – In all cases, whether the petition Petition for District Certification Election among supervisors and
for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor exempt employees of SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis (3 plants)
with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. • Med Arbiter: Issued and Order ordering the conduct of
The employer’s participation in such proceedings shall be limited to: certification among supervisors and exempt employees as 1
(1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) bargaining unit
submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference • Resp SMC: It filed a Notice of Appeal, saying that Med Arbiter
should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the petition.” (Emphasis erred in grouping all together the 3 separate plants into 1
supplied) bargaining unit AND including the supervisory level 3 and
above whose positions are considered confidential in nature
• Resp DOLE Usec Laguesma: Granted Resp SMC’s appeal and
remand the case to Med Arbiter for determination of true
classification of employees sought to be included in the
bargaining unit.
• Pet employees union: Filed MR
6. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union v DOLE Usec Laguesma, Med • Resp Usec Laguesma: Granted the MR; directed the conduct
Arbiter Reynante and SMC of separate certification election among supervisors ranked as
G.R. No.110399, August 15, 1997 levels 1 to 4 and exempt employees in each of the plant
Romero, J. • Resp SMC: Filed MR
Digest by: INTIA • Resp Usec Laguesma: Granted MR; citing Philips Industrial Devt
v NLRC, confidential employees like managerial are not
TOPIC: Eligibility in joining a union as managerial and confidential allowed to form, join or assist a labor union.
employees; Constitution of single bargaining unit despite in different o Supervisory 3 and 4 and so called exempt employees
locations (factories) being admittedly confidential employees, thus NOT
allowed to form, join or assist a labor union
DOCTRINE: • Hence the petition
• Confidential employees – (1) His duties must relate and shall
have access to confidential labor relations information. IF such ISSUE/S:
“confidentiality” only pertains to internal business or secret 3. WON Supervisory level 3 and 4 employees AND exempt
trades, NOT confidential. (2) IF such employee has knowledge employees are considered confidential employees, thus not
and access to confidential labor relations BUT only incidental allowed – NO
and NOT necessary in the performance of his functions, STILL 4. WON employees on the 3 different plants constitute
NOT confidential appropriate single bargaining unit – YES

• Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the HELD:


communal or mutual interests of the employees are not
sacrificed ON THE 1ST ISSUE: NO

FACTS:
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 15

• Supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential
LEGAL BASIS: employees merely because they handle confidential data as
• As provided in the Labor Code, Confidential employees are pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said
those: restrictions.
o Who assist or act in a confidential capacity • The information they handle are properly classifiable as
o To persons who formulate, determine and effectuate technical and internal business operations data which has no
management policies in the field of labor relations relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances
*such criteria are cumulative
• In determining the confidentiality of certain employees, what AS TO THE 2ND ISSUE: YES
must be considered is the employees’ necessary access to
confidential labor relations information LEGAL BASIS:
o Access to information which is regarded by the • As provided in the Labor Code, An appropriate bargaining unit
employer to be confidential from the business may be defined as a group of employees of a given employer,
standpoint, such as financial information or technical comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
trade secrets, will not render an employee a employees.
confidential employee. o It must effect a grouping of employees who have
o Jurisprudence: Westinghouse Electric Corp v. NLRB substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working
§ An employee may not be excluded from conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining.
appropriate bargaining unit merely because he
has access to confidential information APPLICATION:
concerning employers internal business • In the instant case, the employees have community or
operations and which is not related to the field mutuality of interest. It is undisputed that they all belong to the
of labor relations Magnolia Poultry Division of SMC.
o IF employees has access to confidential labor relations o Although they belong to three different plants, they
information BUT such is merely incidental to his duties perform work of the same nature, receive the same
and such knowledge is not necessary in the wages and compensation, and most importantly, share
performance of his duties, STILL not confidential a common stake in concerted activities.
employees • Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the
• REASON: Possible conflict of interest; Management should not communal or mutual interests of the employees are not
be required to handle labor relations matters through sacrificed.
employees who are represented by the union with the • Jurisprudence: UP v Calleja-Ferrer, where all non-academic
company is required to deal and who in the normal rank and file employees of the University of the Philippines in
performance of their duties may obtain advance information Diliman, Quezon City, Padre Faura, Manila, Los Baos, Laguna
of the company’s position with regard to contract and the Visayas were allowed to participate in a certification
negotiations, the disposition of grievances, or other labor election
relations matters
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Supervisors level 3 and 4 and exempt
APPLICATION: employees of SMC are allowed to have certification election as a one
bargaining unit

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 16

• AFA appealed the denial to the Sec. of Labor (SOLE), who in
turn reversed the Med-Arbiter and ordered the conduct of a
certification election.
• Meanwhile however, AIM’s Petition for Cancellation of AFA’s
certificate of registration was granted.
• AFA’s appealed the same to the BLR, which reversed the
cancellation. The BLR ruled that the grounds relied upon by
AIM are not among the grounds authorized in the LC and that
AFA is not composed of managerial employees.
7. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (AIM) vs. AIM FACULTY • AIM appealed the decision of the SOLE which had granted the
ASSOCIATION Petition for Certification Election.
G.R. No. 207971, January 23, 2017 • The CA reversed the decision of the SOLE, agreeing the AFA is
Ponente: Del Castillo composed of managerial employees. AFA brought this case
Digest by: DOLAR before the SC via Pet. for Review on Certiorari, docketed as
GR. 197089. This case remains pending before the SC up to this
TOPIC: Labor Organizations; Employees covered/not covered; date.
Managerial and Supervisory employees • AIM also filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA,
questioning the decision of the BLR that had denied its Petition
DOCTRINE: for Cancellation.
Managerial employees are not allowed to join labor organizations. • The CA denied the petition. AIM’s MR was likewise denied.
Hence, the instant petition before the SC.
FACTS:
• Petitioner AIM is a registered non-stock, non-profit educational ISSUE/S:
institution. WON the CA erred in not cancelling the certificate of registration of
• Respondent AIM Faculty Association (AFA) is a duly registered AFA -NO
labor organization composed of members of the AIM faculty.
• AFA filed a Petition for Certification Election, seeking to HELD:
represent a bargaining unit in AIM consisting of 40 faculty ANSWER: No, because the issue of whether AFA’s members are
members. managerial employees is still pending resolution in GR. 197089. The
• AIM opposed the petition, claiming that AFA’s members are issue was first raised by AIM in said case. The resolution of the same
managerial employees. cannot be pre-empted.
• AIM thereafter filed a Petition for Cancellation of AFA’s
certificate of registration on the ground of misrepresentation in LAW: The Labor code, specifically Art. 255, provides that “managerial
registration and that AFA is composed of managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist, or form any labor
employees. organization.”
• AFA’s Petition for Certification Election was denied by the Med-
Arbiter, holding that AFA was composed of managerial CONCLUSION: As it has not yet been determined that AFA’s members
employees. are managerial, the instant petition cannot be resolved. Until said issue
is resolved with finality, AIM’s Petition for Cancellation of AFA’s

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 17

certificate of registration cannot be resolved. This is because said business, which includes the manufacture of carbonated soft
petition relies of the allegation that AFA’s members are managerial drinks.
employees. Thus, as a matter of courtesy and in order to avoid 2. Ilocos Professional and Technical Employees Union or IPTEU
conflicting decisions, GR. 197089 must first be determine whether AFA (respondent) is a registered independent labor organization
is composed of managerial employees. with address at CCBPI Ilocos Plant in Barangay Catuguing, San
Nicalos, Ilocos Norte.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
WHEREFORE, considering that the outcome of this case depends on FACTS:
the resolution of the issue relative to the nature of respondent's • IPTEU filed a verified petition for certification election seeking to
membership pending in G.R. No. 197089, this case is represent a bargaining unit consisting of approximately 22
ordered CONSOLIDATED with G.R. No. 197089. rank-and-file professional and technical employees of CCBPI
Ilocos Norte Plant.
• CCBPI prayed, among others, for the denial and dismissal of
the petition, arguing that members of the bargaining unit
sought to be represented by IPTEU are either supervisory
employees or confidential employees, hence, ineligible for
8. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPIES, INC v. ILOCOS PROFESSIONAL inclusion as members of IPTEU.
AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION • A preliminary hearing of the petition was scheduled and held,
G.R. No. 193798, September 9, 2015 wherein the possibility of voluntary recognition or consent
Peralta election was not acceded to by CCBPI.
Digest by: GUANIO
Mediator-Arbiter Florence Marie Gacad-Ulep: granted IPTEU’s petition
TOPIC: Managerial and supervisory employees; Mixed membership being convinced that the union members are rank-and-file employees
and not occupying positions that are supervisory or confidential in
DOCTRINE: nature. The conduct of the Preelection Conference was ordered.
To be classified as a confidential employee, access to vital labor
information is an imperative consideration. Employees who encounter • During the Preelection Conference, CCBPI and IPTEU mutually
or handle trade secrets and financial information are not agrees to conduct the certification election on 21 September
automatically classified as confidential employees. A confidential 2007.
employee must assist or act in a confidential capacity and obtain • On election day, only 16 of the 22 employees in the IPTEU list
confidential information relating to labor relations policies. Exposure to votes. However, no votes were canvassed.
internal business operations of the company is not per se a ground for o CCBPI filed and registered a Protest questioning the
the exclusion in the bargaining unit. conduct and mechanics of the election and a
Challenge to Votes on the ground that the voters are
Parties: supervisory and confidential employees.
1. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. or CCBPI (petitioner) is a • By agreement, the parties met for the opening and counting
domestic corporation duly organized and operating under the of the challenged votes.
Philippines laws. It is primarily engaged in the beverage

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 18

Med-Arbiter: denied CCBPI’s challenged to the 16 votes. She found exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the
that the voters are rank-and-file employees holding positions that are supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities
not confidential in nature, and who are not, or used to be, members relating to labor relations.
of Ilocos Monthlies Union (IMU) due to the reclassification of their o The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who,
positions by CCBPI and have been excluded from the CBA entered in the normal course of their duties, become aware of
into by IMU and CCBPI from 1997 to 2005. management policies relating to labor relations is a
principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
• Consequently, the challenged votes were opened and “confidential employee rule.”
canvassed. After garnering 14 out of the 16 votes cast, IPTEU
was proclaimed as the SEBA of the rank-and-file exempt • Corollarily, although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the
workers in CCBPI Ilocos Norte Plant. ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to
• CCBPI elevated the case to the SOLE. managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this
prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason
SOLE: denied the appeal, holding that, as shown by the certification of of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act
the IMU President and the CBAs forged between CCBPI and IMU from in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence,
1997 to 2007, the 22 employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.
not part of IMU and are excluded from its CBA coverage. • Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-
file bargaining unit.
CA: denied the petition. o The rationale for their separate category and
disqualification to join any labor organization is similar
• Hence, this petition. to the inhibition for managerial employees, because if
allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might
ISSUE: WON the 22 employees of the bargaining unit sought to be not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict
represented by IPTEU are confidential employees, hence, ineligible for of interests and the union can also become company
inclusion as members of IPTEU – NO denominated with the presence of managerial
employees in the union membership.
HELD: o Having access to confidential information, confidential
employees may also become the source of undue
ANSWER: NO. CCBPI failed to prove that the 22 employees are advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies
confidential employees. of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.
(San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors
LAW: and Exempt Union, 670 Phil. 421, 432-434; 655 SCRA 1,
• Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or 14 [2011].
act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who • To be considered as a confidential employee, an employee
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in must assist or act in a confidential capacity and obtain
the field of labor relations. confidential information relating to labor relations policies.
o The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met Exposure to internal business operations of the company is not
if an employee is to be considered a confidential per se a ground for the exclusion in the bargaining unit.
employee — that is, the confidential relationship must Employees who encounter or handle trade secrets and

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 19

financial information are not automatically classified as employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are not IMU
confidential employees. members and are not included in the CBAs due to
• The determination of factual issues is vested in the Mediator- reclassification of their positions. If these documents were false,
Arbiter and the Department of Labor and Employment. the IMU should have manifested its vigorous opposition.
Pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the Court
should refrain from resolving such controversies unless the case CONCLUSION: Therefore, the subject employees are not excluded to
falls under recognized and well-established exceptions. The be members of IPTEU because they do not handle the kind of
doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to information that is relevant to collective bargaining negotiations
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the settlement of grievances as would classify them as confidential
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative employees.
body of special competence.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED. The
APPLICATION: Decision of CA, which affirmed Resolution of the Secretary of Labor
• In the present case, the subject employees encounter and and Employment, dismissing petitioner’s appeal that assailed the
handle financial as well as physical production data and other Decision (On the Challenged Voters) and Proclamation of the Winner,
information which are considered vital and important from of the Mediator-Arbiter, are hereby AFFIRMED.
business operations’ standpoint.
o Such information is not the kind of information that is
relevant to collective bargaining negotiations and
settlement of grievances as would classify them as
confidential employees.
• As to whether the 16 votes sought to be excluded from the 9. THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees, such EMPLOYMENT
query is a question of fact, which is not a proper issue in a G.R. No. 172132, July 23, 2014
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules. This holds more J. Bersamin
true in the present case in view of the consistent findings of the Digest by: MARTINEZ
Med-Arbiter, the SOLE and the CA.
o In this case, organization charts, detailed job TOPIC: Managerial and Supervisory membership – mixed membership
descriptions, and training programs were presented by
CCBPI before the Med-Arbiter, the SOLE, and the CA. DOCTRINE:
o Despite these, the Med-Arbiter ruled that the subject The mixed membership does not result in the illegitimacy of the
employees should not be automatically classified as registered labor union unless the same was done through
confidential employees although they encounter or misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
handle trade secrets and financial information. The
SOLE, which the CA affirmed, likewise held that the FACTS:
questioned voters do not have access to confidential • National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied
labor relations information. Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter
• Lastly, As proven by the certification of the IMU President as (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) filed a petition for certification election,
well as the CBAs executed between IMU and CCBPI, the 22

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 20

seeking to represent all the supervisory employees of Heritage • the mixture or co-mingling of employees in a union was not a
Hotel Manila ground for dismissing a petition for the certification election
• Heritage Hotel filed an opposition which was denied by Med- under
Arbiter Fernando and issued order for conduct of certification • Remedy: exclude the ineligible employees from the bargaining
election unit during the inclusion-exclusion proceedings
• NUWHRAIN-HHMSC moved for the conduct of the pre-election • Dismissal of the petition for the certification election based on
conference despite repeated non-appearance and the legitimacy of the petitioning union would be inappropriate
suspension of election because it would effectively allow a collateral attack against
• Heritage Hotel filed for cancellation of union registration based the union’s legal personality
on the following: • Collateral attack against the personality of the labor
1. mixed membership of supervisors and managers in a organization was prohibited
labor union
2. non-submission of reportorial requirements CA: Affirmed DOLE
a. Annual financial report
b. Updated list of members ISSUE/S: Should the petition for the cancellation of union registration
• DOLE ordered certification election and declared NUWHRAIN based on mixed membership of supervisors and managers in a labor
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent union, and the non-submission of reportorial requirements to the DOLE
justify the suspension of the proceedings for the certification elections
Med-Artbiter Falcontion: cancellation of union registration was not a or even the denial of the petition for the certification election? - NO
bar to the holding of the certification election
HELD: NO, Heritage Hotel was not able to adduce substantial
Heritage Hotel appealed to DOLE: protested and insists the illegitimacy evidence to prove the existence of the mixed membership.
of NUWHRAIN
• NUWHRAIN involves mixture of membership between two LAW: According to Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor Code
employee groups The mixed membership does not result in the illegitimacy of the
o Rank-and-file and supervisory employees - one vested registered labor union unless the same was done through
with the right to self-organization misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the:
o Managerial and confidential employees - deprived of • adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
such right amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification
• Suspension of the certification election was appropriate • election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of
because a finding of “illegal mixture” of membership during a voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the
petition for the cancellation of union registration determined list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal
whether or not the union had met the 20% representation addresses to the BLR.
requirement in the Code • Voluntary dissolution by the members
• Mixed membership is a ground for canceling the union
registration IN THIS CASE:
The actual functions of an employee, not his job designation,
DOLE: denied appeal determined whether the employee occupied a managerial,
supervisory or rank-and-file position

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 21

• Heritage Hotel failed in that respect merely identified the organization would be compromised.
positions that were either confidential or managerial, but did
not present any supporting evidence to prove or explain the CONCLUSION: Therefore, mere allegation of Heritage Hotel, without
identification. offering any actual functions of the managers and confidential
• In the protest, it only enumerated the positions that were employees included in NUWHRAIN’s list of members, would not render
allegedly confidential and managerial, and identified two the personality of the union illegitimate.
employees that belonged to the rank-and-file
• It did not offer any description to show that the positions ON THE ISSUE OF REPORTORIAL REQUIRMENTS (not really the issue)
belonged to different employee groups.
• For the purpose of de-certifying a union - it is not enough to LAW: Art. 242-A provides that
establish that the rank-and-file union includes ineligible Failure to comply with the reportorial requirements shall not be a
employees in its membership. ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the
• There was likewise no proof of misrepresentation, false erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership,
statement or fraud in connection with the submission of list of or any appropriate penalty.
members
IN THIS CASE:
As to confidential employees who were excluded from the right to • NUWHRAIN, though belatedly, submitted the required
self-organization, they must: documents by respondent, the purpose of the law has been
1. assist or act in a confidential capacity achieved
2. to persons who formulated, determined, and effectuated • The union members and, in fact, all the employees belonging
management policies in the field of labor relations. to the appropriate bargaining unit should not be deprived of a
bargaining agent, merely because of the negligence of the
In both Toyota Motor and Dunlop Slazenger, the Court was convinced union officers who were responsible for the submission of the
that the concerned labor unions were comprised by mixed rank-and- documents to the BLR.
file and supervisory employees. (These cases were compared here)
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
Toyota Motor Dunlop Slazenger WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review
the employer submitted the job the Court observed that the on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on December 13,
descriptions of the concerned labor union of supervisors 2005 by the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the
employees to prove that there included employees occupying costs of suit.
were supervisors in the positions that apparently
petitioning union for rank-and- belonged to the rank-and-file.
file employees.
In both cases: the employers were able to adduce substantial
evidence to prove the existence of the mixed membership.
10. MERALCO vs Secretary of Labor
Mere allegations sans substance would not be enough, most G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991
especially because the constitutional right of workers to self- Ponente: Medialdea, J.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 22

Digest by: Aldaba, JB Yes, security guards may now join a labor union either in a rank-and-
file or a supervisory depending on their respective ranks.
TOPIC: Labor Organizations—Covered/Not covered employees—
Security Guards LAW:
EO No. 111 which eliminated the provision with regard to security
FACTS: guards, effectively amending Art. 245 of the Labor Code to
The Staff and Technical Employees of Meralco (STEAM) filed a petition exclude only managerial employees from joining labor
for certification of election, seeking to represent non-managerial organizations.
employees with pay grades VII and above, non-managerial
employees in the security and patrol division, and employees within Congress passed the actual RA 6715 (not the IRR), Sec. 18 of which
the rank-and-file who are disqualified from becoming union members amended Art. 245, stating that only managerial employees are
of any organization within the same bargaining unit, since the Meralco prohibited from membership in labor organizations and bargaining
Employees and Workers’ Association (MEWA) represents employees units. Art. 245 does not prohibit security guards and personnel from
from pay grade I-VI. Meralco sought to dismiss since managerial joining such organizations.
employees are prohibited by law from forming or joining supervisory
unions and since security guards cannot join the rank-and-file, among The Supreme Court however noted that the Security guards’ right
others. to organize may have possible consequences because RA 6715 is
apt to produce divided loyalties in the faithful performance of their
Med-Arbiter: Managerial employees cannot form, join, or assist a labor duties. Economic reasons would present the employees
organization or the rank and file; those in Patrol and Security are concerned with the temptation to subordinate their duties to the
tasked with providing security in the company and are not eligible to allegiance they owe to the union. In the event of a strike, security
join the rank-and-file bargaining unit pursuant to Sec. 2(c), Rule V, personnel may neglect or abandon their duties, such as protection
Book V of the IRR of the LC (1988). of the employer, the control of the premises, the protection of
property of the employer and the persons of its officials and
With the enactment of RA 6715 and its IRR, the STEAM renounced its employees. The Court just hopes that corresponding amendatory
representation of the employees in the patrol and security division, as and suppletory laws from Congress will help avoid possible conflict
said employees were excluded from being able to join unions, along of interest in security personnel.
with supervisory employees, with the passage of RA 6715. The Med-
Arbiter, in its Resolution, provided that non-managerial employees of CONCLUSION:
the Security and Patrol Division are considered among the rank-and- With the passing of RA 6715 amending the IRR which the previous
file and granted the petition for certification of election, to the rulings have been based, security guards may now join a labor
exclusion of supervisory employees. organization, either the rank-and-file or supervisory depending on their
respective rank.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the security guards or personnel may be lumped
together with the rank-and-file union and/or the supervisory union? DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
Petition of Meralco is dismissed. TRO is lifted.
HELD:
ANSWER:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 23

- CONTENT OF RESOLUTION: That “all union members shall
11. CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (CENRO) v SEC. OF DOLE withdraw, retract, or recall the union members’
G.R. No. 94045| September 13, 1991 membership from Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc.
J. Regalado in order to avail (of) the full benefits under the existing
Digest by: ASUNCION Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by and
between CENECO and CURE, and the supposed benefits
TOPIC: Covered and Not Covered Employees: Members of that our union may avail (of) under the renewed CBA."
Cooperatives • In response, by virtue of RESOLUTION No. 90, the withdrawal
from membership was denied by CENECO
DOCTRINE: The right to join an organization necessarily includes the - REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL: The basis of withdrawal is not
equivalent right not to join the same among the grounds covered by Board Resolution No. 5023
• Since CENECO refused to renegotiate a new CBA, CURE filed a
QUICKY OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS: This case involves employees of an PETITION FOR DIRECT RECOGNITION or for CERTIFICATION
electric cooperative, who are same time members thereof, who ELECTION supported by 282 of 388 rank-and-file employees in
withdrew their membership from the electric cooperative in order to CENECO.
form and join a bargaining unit for purposes of negotiation for CBA. • Such Petition was sought to be dismissed by CENECO
Are they allowed to do that? Let’s find out! - GROUND: There is a legal constraints to the filing of
Certification election since “employees who at the same
FACTS: time are members of an electric cooperative are not
PARTIES INVOLVED: entitled to form or join unions for purposes of CBA, for
• CENECO: Seeks to annul the election of CURE as the sole and certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his
bargaining representative coowners” (Batangas I Electric Coop v Young)
• CENECO Union of Rational Employees (CURE): Sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of all rank-and-file ARGUMENTS OF CENECO:
employees of Central Negros Electric • To allow the withdrawal of the members of CENECO from the
cooperative without justifiable reason would greatly affect the
HOW THE CASE STARTED objectives and goals of CENECO as an electric cooperative
• CENECO entered into a CBA with CURE • The Secretary of Labor, as well as the Med-Arbiter, has no
- TERM: 3 years retroactive to April 1, 1987 and extending up jurisdiction over the issue of withdrawal from membership,
to March 31, 1990 which is vested in National Electrification Administration
• In 1989, CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be • Assuming that Secretary has jurisdiction, CURE failed to exhaust
conducted for a new CBA. administrative remedies by not referring the matter of
• However, such request was denied by CENECO on the ground membership withdraw to NEA
that, employees who at the same time are members of an
electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union.
• Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation,
CURE members, in a general assembly, approved RESOLUTION RULING OF MED-ARBITER: Granted the Petition for Certification Election
No. 35, such was ratified by 259 of the 362 union members • It directed that certification election be held between CURE
and NO UNION

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 24

RULING OF DOLE: • The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling
• Directly certifying CURE as the exclusive bargaining reason why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be
representative of the rank-and-file employees of CURE; thus, allowed.
there is no need to conduct certification election - As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member-
employees is an expression of their preference for union
membership over that of membership in the cooperative.
ISSUES:
• MAIN: WON employees of cooperatives who withdrew their CONCLUSION: Thus, by virtue of the cooperative members’ right to
membership from such cooperative are entitled to form and self-organization, they can validly withdraw their membership from the
join bargaining unit for purposes of the negotiations for CBA. cooperative and validly form their own bargaining unit.
[YES]
• COLLATERAL: WON the order of direct certification by the AS TO VALIDITY OF DIRECT CERTIFICATION
Labor Secretary is allowed and valid. [NO] ANSWER: NO. DIRECT CERTIFICATION IS NOT ALLOWED

AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF MEMBERSHIP LEGAL BASIS: By virtue of Executive Order No. 111, which became
ANSWER: YES. MEMBERS OF COOPERATIVES MAY VALIDLY WITHDRAW effective on March 4, 1987, the direct certification originally allowed
THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND THEY ARE FREE TO FORM AND JOIN ANY under Article 257 of the Labor Code has apparently been
BARGAINING UNIT discontinued as a method of selecting the exclusive bargaining agent
of the workers.
LEGAL BASIS: As provided by the Constitution, it is the avowed policy - This amendment affirms the superiority of the certification
of State to afford full protection to labor and to promote the primacy election over direct election
of free collective bargaining mandates that the employees’ right to
form and join unions for purposes of collective bargaining be ANALYSIS: While it may be true that there was more than majority
accorded the highest consideration. number of members who supported the petition for certification
election, such fact is not sufficient to order direct election.
ANALYSIS: In this case, their withdrawal of membership is valid. • What is equally important is that everyone be given a
• Under the Articles of Incorporation of CENECO, members are democratic space in the bargaining unit concerned.
merely required to surrender his/her membership certificate • The most effective way of determining which labor
and be refunded his membership fee less any obligation that organization can truly represent the working force is by
he has with the cooperation. certification election
• By such terms, there appears to be no other condition or
requirement imposed upon a withdrawing member. CONCLUSION: Thus, direct certification shall not be allowed despite
• There is no just cause for CENECO to deny their withdrawal the attainment of majority votes that supported the petition for
from membership of its employees who are also members of certification election.
the union.
• In addition, membership in the cooperative is on a voluntary DISPOSITIVE PORTION/ RULING: WHEREFORE, the questioned order for
basis. Hence, withdrawal therefrom cannot be restricted the direct certification of respondent CURE as the bargaining
unnecessarily. The right to join an organization necessarily representative of the employees of petitioner CENECO is hereby
includes the equivalent right not to join the same.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 25

ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The med-arbiter is hereby ordered to Ø In the second case, the International Rice Research Institute
conduct a certification election among was a fruit of memorandum of understanding between the
the rank-and-file employees of CENECO with CURE and No Union as Philippine government and the Ford and Rochefeller
the choices therein. Foundations. It was intended to be an autonomous,
philanthropic tax-free, non-profit, non stock organization
designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting “
basic research on the rice plant.”
Ø It was organized and registered with the SEC as a private
corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by
12. Int’l Catholic Immigration Commission vs. Calleja virtue of P.D no. 1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives,
G.R. No. 85750, September 28, 1990 privileges and immunities of an international organization.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. Ø The KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRI-


Digest by: Charry ORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATION IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND
AGRICULTURE (Kapisanan) filed a petition for direct
TOPIC: Covered/Not covered employees certification election with regional office of the Department of
Labor and Employment. IRRI opposed the petition invoking
Pres. Decree no.1620 conferring upon it the status of an
DOCTRINE: international organization and granting it immunity from all
(Calibri, 11, single spaced) civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine
abcdef laws. The Med-Arbiter upheld the opposition on the basis of PD
1620 and dismissed the petition for direct certification.

FACTS: Ø On appeal by BLR Director, set aside the med-arbiter’s


Ø ICMC an accredited refugee processing center in Morong decision and contends that immunities and privileges granted
Bataan, is a non-profit agency involved in international to IRRI do not include exemption from coverage of our labor
humanitarian and voluntary work. It is duly registered with the laws.
United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and
enjoys Consultative status II. It has the activities parallel to those
of the International Committee for Migrtion (ICM) and the ISSUE/S:
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (1) Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and
immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of
Ø On July 14, 1986, Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Philippine labor laws. - YES
Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and (2) Whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed grave
Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certification election
rank and file members employed by the ICMC. The latter filed by Kapisanan. - NO
opposed the petition on the ground that it enjoys diplomatic
immunity. HELD:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 26

1) Yes. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our its official business customarily extended to each other by its
system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially individual member States.
a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government, and The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly
where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by necessitated by their international character and respective purposes.
the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by
then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by
appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very
. . . or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international
the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction . . organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political
. as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member
foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that in such cases the judicial States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered
department of (this) government follows the action of the political performance of their functions.
branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic
jurisdiction. Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of dispute
with management as, in fact, there had been organized a forum for
Employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to better management-employee relationship as evidenced by the
be settled because each specialized agency shall make provision for formation of the Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM)
appropriate modes of settlement of disputes out of contracts or other wherein "both management and employees were and still are
disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial
party. Moreover, pursuant to article IV of memorandum of abuse of cooperation between IRRI and its employees." The existence of this
privilege by ICMC, the government is free to withdraw the privileges Union factually and tellingly belies the argument that Pres. Decree No.
and immunities accorded. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status, privileges and immunities of an
international organization, deprives its employees of the right to self-
(2) No. There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of organization.
international immunities to international organizations. These principles,
contained in the ILO Memorandum are stated thus:
1) international institutions should have a status which protects DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 85750 (the
them against control or interference by any one government ICMC Case), the Petition is GRANTED, the Order of the Bureau of Labor
in the performance of functions for the effective discharge of Relations for certification election is SET ASIDE, and the Temporary
which they are responsible to democratically constituted Restraining Order earlier issued is made PERMANENT.
international bodies in which all the nations concerned are
represented;

2) no country should derive any national financial advantage


by levying fiscal charges on common international funds; and

3) the international organization should, as a collectivity of


States members, be accorded the facilities for the conduct of

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 27

13. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary o 11 votes were initially segregated because they were
G.R. No. 181531 | July 31, 2009 cast by dismissed employees (the legality of their dismissal was
Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J. still pending before the Court of Appeals.)
Digest by: OLLERO o 6 votes were segregated because the employees who
cast them were already occupying supervisory positions at the
TOPIC: Covered/Not covered employees – probationary employees time of the election.
o 5 votes were segregated on the ground that they were
DOCTRINE: cast by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing
In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such employees
appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are cannot vote.
entitled to vote. A certification election is the process of determining o But, the vote of one Jose Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an probationary employee, was counted.
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. The • Med-Arbiter: open 17 out of the 22 segregated votes, except
significance of an employee’s right to vote in a certification election the 5 votes of the probationary employees.
cannot thus be overemphasized. The provision in the CBA disqualifying • NUHWHRAIN-MPHC: Having garnered 151 votes, appealed to
probationary employees from voting cannot override the the SOLE arguing that the votes of the probationary employees
Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well should have been opened considering that probationary
as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on employee, Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. Also, respondent
certification elections and jurisprudence. HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes, should not be
immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening
FACTS: of the 17 segregated ballots would push the number of valid
• A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes
among the rank-and-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn which HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short of the
Manila Pavilion Hotel (Hotel) with the following results: majority which would then become 69.
EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS LIST = 353 • SOLE: Affirmed Med-Arbiter. The certification of HIMPHLU as the
TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346 exclusive bargaining agent was proper.
NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151 o pursuant to Section 5, Rule IX of the Omnibus Rules
HIMPHLU = 169 Implementing the Labor Code on exclusion and inclusion of
NO UNION = 1 voters in a certification election, the probationary employees
SPOILED = 3 cannot vote, as at the time the Med-Arbiter issued on August
SEGREGATED = 22 9, 2005 the Order granting the petition for the conduct of the
* National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied certification election, the six probationary employees were not
Industries Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) yet hired, hence, they could not vote.
* Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU) o Votes cast by the 11 dismissed employees, they could
• Since there was a significant number of segregated votes, be considered since their dismissal was still pending appeal.
contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and o Votes cast by the 6 alleged supervisory employees, the
respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union SOLE held that their votes should be counted since their
(HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide promotion took effect months after the issuance of the above-
which among those votes would be opened and tallied.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 28

said August 9, 2005 Order of the Med-Arbiter, hence, they were 2nd issue:
still considered as rank-and-file. No. Under the so-called “double majority rule” for there to be a valid
• MR denied by SOLE. Appeal to CA. It affirmed the ruling of the certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted
SOLE. MR denied. Hence the case. and the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes
cast; Majority is 50% + 1.
ISSUE/S:
Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the
1. Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and
certification elections should be allowed to vote? exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate
2. Whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to bargaining unit.
be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent?
Under the so-called “double majority rule,” for there to be a valid
HELD: certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted
AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes
1st Issue: cast. From the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’
Yes. The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory
not questioned but because probationary employees have the right employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid
to vote in a certification election. The votes of the five other votes cast would increase—from 321 to 337.
probationary employees should thus also have been counted.
Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, which
amended Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
provides: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 8,
Section 2. Who may join labor unions and workers' associations. – x x x 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a affirming the Resolutions dated January 22, 2007 and March 22, 2007,
definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in OS-A-9-52-
be eligible for membership in any labor organization. X x x 05 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Department of Labor and
Employment-Bureau of Labor Relations is DIRECTED to cause the
The period of reckoning in determining who shall be included in the list holding of a run-off election between petitioner, National Union of
of eligible voters is in cases where a timely appeal has been filed from Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion
the Order of the Med-Arbiter, the date when the Order of the Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday Inn Manila
Secretary of Labor and Employment, whether affirming or denying the Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
appeal, becomes final and executory.

The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from


voting cannot override the Constitutionally- protected right of workers
to self- organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence.
14. YUMANG v. RPN 9

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 29

G.R. No. 201016, June 22, 2016 • The grievance committee submitted its report to the union
BRION, J. board of directors stating that while Yumang and others
Digest by: Sumanga cannot be said to have violated the prohibition against
forming another union outside of the freedom period, they can
TOPIC: Rights and conditions of membership; be held guilty of malicious attack against the union or union
officers under the CBL
DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Article 250 of the Labor Code, one of the rights o They were found guilty for urging or advocating to the
of a union member is the right to call for the investigation of any members of filing cases with the DOLE without
irregularity within the union. Thus, a complaint filed regarding such an availment of exhaustion of all remedies
irregularity cannot be considered a misconduct or disloyalty under the
union’s constitution and by-laws. • RPNEU officers and directors asked RPN 9 to terminate the
employment of the expelled union members, pursuant to the
FACTS: CBA’S union security clause
• Leoncia Yumang was employed in Radio Philippines Network, • Yumang wrote to RPN 9 claiming that their expulsion had been
Inc. She was a member of the Radio Philippines Network reversed by 118 union members or more than 30% of RPNEU’s
Employees Union (RPNEU) which had a CBA with RPN 9 (2004- general membership
2009) • But RPNEU that those 30% could not have validly convened
• Yumang and 14 other union members filed complaints with the since Yumang and her group failed to appeal the BOD
DOLE-NCR against the RPNEU officers and members of the resolution expelling them from the union as required by the CBL
Board of Directors for: impeachment, an audit of union funds, • Inquiry by RPN on the said matter ensued but Yumang sensed
and the conduct of a snap election. that the RPN panel handling the case was conducting an
o Because allegedly the union president was driving a inquiry only to effect a reconciliation between them and the
new Toyota revo which was registered under the name officers and not to determine the validity of their expulsion
of RPN’s general manager o Nonetheless, they expressed no objection to a
reconciliation on condition that a referendum should
• In the meantime, two complaints were filed with the RPNEU be held, the union should shoulder their attorney’s fees
Executive Board against Yumang and her group with the and that they be paid damages
Grievance Committee. The complaints involved alleged • The Union president (Siozon) wanted all the cases dropped.
violations of the RPNEU Constitution and Bylaws (CBL), The next day, the expelled union members informed the panel
principally: that they would no longer answer any questions and allegedly
for this reason, the panel concluded the inquiry
1) the commission of acts inimical to the interests of • The panel recommended that RPN management comply with
the union and the general membership; the CBA’S union security clause (so terminated na nga ang
2) the attempt to form another union; and Yumang and friends)
3) an appeal to the general membership urging them • Yumang filed a complaint for unpaid CBA benefits and
to commence legal action without exhausting applicable wage orders
remedies under the RPNEU CBL. • Afterwhich, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
RPN

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 30

• The Labor Arbiter declared that Yumang had been illegally
dismissed and ordered her reinstatement with backwages, • Hence, this case.
monetary benefits
o Also declared that although Yumang’s dismissal was in ISSUE/S:
compliance with the CBA’s union security clause, her 5. WON Yumang can be held guilty of malicious attack against
expulsion from the union was without due process the union officers and thus warrant her expulsion from the
union and from the establishment itself by virtue of the CBA’s
• RPN appealed and NLRC reversed and declared that union security clause
Yumang’s dismissal valid HELD:
• Yumang sought appeal to the CA via petition for certiorari
charging NLRC with grave abuse of discretion when it ANSWER:
entertained RPN’s appeal despite non-perfection and for • No, Yumang cannot be held guilty of malicious attack against
declaring her dismissal as valid the union officers that will warrant the termination of her
• Yumang futher argued that while her employment was employment.
terminated in compliance with the CBA’s union security clause, LAW:
she was not accorded due process before she was dismissed Pursuant to Article 250 of the Labor Code which lists down the rights
o She assails that RPN’s inquiry into her expulsion without and conditions of membership in a labor organization, it is her right to
the company investigating whether it was justified be informed of what is going on with the union, especially in handling
o That inquiry was conducted for the sole purpose for of union funds, the negotiation and conclusion of the CBA, in labor
reconciliation and not determining the validity of her education and in all the rights and obligations of union members
expulsion under existing laws.
o That it merely questioned the resolution of at least 30%
of union membership reversing their expulsion CONCLUSION:
In the case at hand, apparently, Yumang and the other expelled
• Yumang denied the RPNEU’s charges against her and invoked union members were not informed about these matters, prompting
her right under Art. 241 of the Labor Code that she has a right them to seek an investigation on how the union affairs were being
to call for the investigation of any irregularity within the union administered. The petitioner cannot be made answerable for
• The CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC ruling malicious attack against the RPNEU and its officers as she was merely
stating that it was well within the NLRC’S jurisdiction to uphold exercising her right, as a union member, to ventilate before the public
petitioners dismissal as per the CBA authorities her perceived grievance against the union leadership.
o It also concluded that Yumang and other
complainants were given several opportunities to DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
defend themselves but they responded with suspicion In sum, the Court finds merit in the petition. The petitioner was illegally
and animosity dismissed as her expulsion from the union had no basis.

• Yumang filed an MR and again raised the matter of non- WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition. The assailed
perfection of the respondents appeal and for failure of CA to decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. LA
explain why it departed from the established facts as ruled by Manansala's decision of April 20, 2007, is ordered REINSTATED with
other divisions in at least 2 identical cases - DENIED modification that in the event the reinstatement of the petitioner

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 31

Leoncia A. Yumang is no longer tenable, she shall be paid backwages of the individual workers cannot be lightly presumed but must be
to be computed from the date her wages were withheld up to the expressly granted, and the employer, as judgment debtor, must deal
finality of this Decision, and separation pay computed at one-month's in all good faith with the union as the agent of the individual workers.
pay for every year of service. The court in turn should certainly verify and assure itself of the fact and
extent of the authority of the union leadership to execute any
compromise or settlement of the judgment on behalf of the individual
workers who are the real judgment creditors.

FACTS:
15. HEIRS OF TEODULO M. CRUZ V. CIR • On June 21, 1952, the Santiago Labor Union, composed of
G.R. No. L- 23331-32, December 27, 1969 workers of the Santiago Rice Mill, a business enterprise
Justice Teehankee engaged in the buying and milling of palay at Isabela, and
Bernal owned operated by King Hong Co., filed before the
respondent Court of Industrial Relations a petition for overtime
TOPIC: Labor Organizations – Rights and Conditions of Membership pay, premium pay for night, Sunday and holiday work, and for
reinstatement of workers illegally laid off. As of then, the total
DOCTRINE: sum claimed by the workers, as itemized in their amended
petition are — P100,816.36 for overtime pay, P19,350.00 for
The union has been evolved as an organization of collective strength premium pay and P3,360.00 for differential pay under the
for the protection of labor against the unjust exactions of capital, but Minimum Wage Law — amounted to P123,526.36.
equally important is the requirement of fair dealing between the union • The court dismissed the petition of the union for lack of merit
and its members, which is fiduciary in nature, and arises out of two and want of jurisdiction; but upon a motion for reconsideration,
factors: one is the degree of dependence of the individual employee the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, by a split decision of
on the union organization; and the other, a corollary of the first, is the 3-2 vote, issued a resolution reversing the decision of the trial
comprehensive power vested in the union with respect to the judge.
individual, The union may be considered but the agent of its members • After the remand of the records for enforcement by CIR, the
for the purpose of securing for them fair and just wages and good Court's Chief Examiner filed his Partial Report wherein the
working conditions and is subject to the obligation of giving the judgment award in favor of the workers totaled to P423,756.74.
members as its principals all information relevant to union and labor However, petitioners claim that in this computation, the filed
matters entrusted to it. examiners did not include the claims of seventy (70) other
laborers whose total claims for back wages would be
Where, however, collective bargaining process is not involved, and P441,000.00. Therefore, the correct grand total amount due the
what is at stake are back wages already earned by the individual laborers would be P864,756.74.
workers by way of overtime, premium and differential pay, and final • The Chief Examiner's Report showed respondent firm's total
judgment has been rendered in their favor, as in the present case, the assets to be P191.151.08, and its net worth to be in the same
real parties in interest with direct material interest, as against the union amount of P191,151.08. The Report further stated respondent
which has only served as a vehicle for collective action to enforce firm sold its trucks, jeep and one car, with a net book value of
their just claims, are the individual workers themselves. Authority of the P2,628.71 for P27,000.00 or a net gain of P24,371.29. Petitioners
union to waive or quit claim all or part of the judgment award in favor claim that the book value of respondent firm's fixed assets is

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 32

only one-sixth of their actual market value of P240.442.50, and • In this conference respondent firm made again the same offer
that its total leviable assets therefore amounted to close to to settle and quitclaim the judgment in favor of the union
P390,000.00, without taking into account the huge income members for the same amount of P110,000.00, which offer had
potential of its rice mill operations. Respondent firm disputes already been ‘rejected by the union at the earlier conference
such a figure as "completely gratuitous and without basis in held on June 25, 1963. But this time, respondent and the
fact." directors of the union decided to settle the case amicably with
• Before and after the submittal of the Chief Examiner's Report, the payment by the firm of the same amount of P110,000.00
the union pressed for execution of the final judgment in favor which was deposited with the Court’s disbursing officer
of its claimants-members. It filed an Urgent Motion for “immediately upon the signing of the settlement which will be
Preliminary Attachment, in view of the disposition by prepared by the respondent firm through its counsel.”
respondent firm of its trucks and automotive equipment, and • One of the union directors together with 49 of its members
by virtue of the fact admitted by respondent firm that it had questioned the amicable settlement that took place. They
stopped operations preparatory to liquidation, by reason of claim that the Board of Directors did not have any express
the alien nationality of most of its stockholders, under the authority of the members of the Santiago Labor Union to enter
provisions of Republic Act No. 3018 nationalizing the rice and into any compromise for the sum of P110,000.00, that it was
corn industry. In another motion, the union had asked that the tainted by apparent bad faith on the part of the President of
Court at least order respondent firm to put up a bond of the Union, that the amount of P110,000.00 is unconscionable,
P500,000.00. considering, that the total claims of the members of the union
• The trial Judge released an Order for the respondent firm to is more than P400,000.00.
deposit in Court the sum of one hundred thousand
(P100,000.00) pesos and to file a surety bond of equal amount. ISSUE/S:
This Order was affirmed by respondent CIR en banc, in its 6. WON this Court can give its sanction to respondent Court's
Resolution denying respondent firm's motion for majority resolution upholding the trial judge's approval of the
reconsideration. union board's settlement for P110,000.00 of the estimated
• The trial judge took no action on the latest Urgent Motion of P423,766.74? NO.
the union, wherein it emphasized that respondent, with Court’s
action rejecting its appeal, no longer had any excuse for HELD:
refusing to comply with the deposit Order. Instead, an
unscheduled conference was called and held on October 31, ANSWER: No.
1963 in the chambers of the trial judge, and attended by
representatives of respondent firm, including their counsels of LAW: The law provides that due process must be followed.
record and the President of the union and 8 directors of the
union. Four of these nine union representatives, including the ANALYSIS: In the present case, the union was deprived of the
union president himself, had no claims or awards whatever assistance of its counsel. The lack or due deliberation and caution in
under the judgment. Said union officials were not assisted by the trial judge’s instant approval of the settlement is seen from the
counsel, as petitioner Mary Concepcion, counsel of record of stipulations therein that the union thereby waived and quitclaimed
the union, was not present, not having been notified of the any and all claims which it may have against the respondent, as well
conference. as the claim of each and every one of the members of the union
against respondent, when precisely the authority of the union board

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 33

members to enter into any such compromise or settlement was under Just as this Court has stricken down unjust exploitation of laborers by
express challenge by petitioner Magalpo, a board member herself oppressive employers, so will it strike down their unfair treatment by
which the trial judge completely disregarded. their own unworthy leaders. The Constitution enjoins the State to afford
protection to labor. Fair dealing is equally demanded of unions as well
Petitioners were deprived of the formal conference and of their right as of employers in their dealings with employees. The union has been
to be assisted by the union counsel as expressly requested, so that a evolved as an organization of collective strength for the protection of
fair hearing could be accorded petitioners and an opportunity labor against the unjust exactions of capital, but equally important is
afforded them to air their serious charges of bad faith and lack the requirement of fair dealing between the union and its members,
authority against the Union leadership. Certainly, all these serious which is fiduciary in nature, and arises out of two factors: “one is the
questions and charges made by petitioners could have been degree of dependence of the individual employee on the union
threshed out and verified, if the formal conference had been held organization; the other, a corollary of the first, is the comprehensive
with the presence of union counsel. power vested in the union with respect to the individual.” The union
may, be considered but the agent of its members for the purpose of
The transcript of the conference is deficient and does not reflect the securing for them fair and just wages and good working conditions
actual discussions and proceedings. This is to be deplored, for in a and is subject to the obligation of giving the members as its principals
matter of such great importance, especially where the union officials all information relevant to union and labor matters entrusted to it.
were unassisted by counsel in an unscheduled conference, care
should be taken by the trial judge that the proceedings are faithfully The union leadership in the case at bar was recreant in its duty
recorded. towards the union members in apparently having failed to disclose to
the union members the full situation of their judgment credit against
LAW: Moreover, the law provides that the lack of any express or respondent, to wit, that they were in the advantageous position of
specific authority of the president and majority of the union Board of being able to require enforcement of the respondent court’s
Directors shall render the settlement invalid. P200,000.00-deposit order, and in presuming that it had authority to
waive and quitclaim the estimated P423,756.74-judgment credit of the
ANALYSIS: In the present case, the petitioner board member Magalpo union members for the unconscionable amount of P110,000.00, which
timely challenged the authority or the union board to execute any had already been previously rejected by the workers. Respondent firm
such settlement, expressly informing the trial judge that the union had could not claim that it dealt in good faith with the union officials, for it
specifically appointed an entity in Manila, the “CREAM, Inc.,” as its hastily executed the purported settlement notwithstanding the serious
attorney in-fact and “exclusive authorized representative for the charges of bad faith against the union leadership, and the non-
evaluation, adjustment and -liquidation or its claim against holding of the scheduled conference where the union leaders, at their
respondent. These union members have repudiated the former union express request, could be duly assisted by union counsel.
president, Maylem and his board of directors, for having betrayed the
union members, and the new union leadership. The interests of the individual worker can be better protected on the
whole by a strong union aware of its moral and legal obligations to
The authority of the union, to execute a settlement of the judgment represent the rank and file faithfully and secure for them the best
award in favor of the individual union members, cannot be presumed wages and working terms and conditions in the process of collective
but must be expressly granted. bargaining. As has been aptly pointed out, the will of the majority must
prevail over that of the minority in the process, for “under the
philosophy of collective responsibility, an employer who bargains in

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 34

good faith should be entitled to rely upon the promises and 1. VICTORIANO v. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION
agreements of the union representatives with whom he must deal G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974
under the compulsion of, law and contract. The “collective bargaining J. ZALDIVAR
process should be carried on between parties who can mutually Digest by: POBE
respect and rely upon the authority of each other.” Where, however,
collective bargaining process is not involved, and what is at stake are TOPIC: Rights and conditions of membership- Freedom of choice
back wages already earned by the individual workers by way of
overtime, premium and differential pay, and final judgment has been DOCTRINE:
rendered in their favor, as in the present case, the real parties in
interest with direct material interest, as against the union which has It must be pointed out that the free exercise of religious profession or
only served as a vehicle for collective action to enforce their just belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must,
claims, are the individual workers themselves. Authority of the union to therefore, yield to the former.
waive or quitclaim all or part of the judgment award in favor of the
individual workers cannot be lightly presumed but must be expressly FACTS:
granted, and the employer, as judgment debtor, must deal in all good
faith with the union as the agent of the individual workers. The Court in
turn should certainly verify and assure itself of the fact and extent of • Benjamin Victoriano, a member of the religious sect known as
the authority of the union leadership to execute any compromise or the "Iglesia ni Cristo", had been in the employ of the Elizalde
settlement of the judgment on behalf of the individual workers who Rope Factory, Inc. since 1958.
are the real judgment creditors. • As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union which had with the Company a collective
The settlement in the case at bar was precipitately approved without bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision
verification of the union boards authority to execute the compromise which requires membership in the union as a condition of
settlement and that there was no such authority. employment for all permanent employees’ workers covered
by this Agreement.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the Union Board’s settlement is invalid. • The collective bargaining agreement expired on March 3, 1964
but was renewed the following day, March 4, 1964.
• Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, prior
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: to its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, the employer was
WHEREFORE, the respondent Court’s Orders are hereby declared null not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor
and void and set aside. organization to require as a condition of employment
membership therein, if such labor organization is the
representative of the employees."
• On June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act No. 3350 was
enacted, introducing an amendment to - paragraph (4)
subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows:
... "but such agreement shall not cover members of any
religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any
such labor organization"

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 35

• Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation members thereto"; and, consequently, deprives said members of their
of its members with any labor organization, Appellee constitutional right to form or join lawful associations or organizations
presented his resignation to appellant Union in 1962, and when guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
no action was taken thereon, he reiterated his resignation on
September 3, 1974.
• Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company
asking the latter to separate Appellee from the service in view HELD:
of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a member.
• The management of the Company in turn notified Appellee ANSWER: NO.
and his counsel that unless the Appellee could achieve a
satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would LAW: The purpose of Republic Act No. 3350 is secular, worldly, and
be constrained to dismiss him from the service. temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and eternal. It was intended
• This prompted Appellee to file an action for injunction, in the to serve the secular purpose of advancing the constitutional right to
Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the Company and the free exercise of religion, by averting that certain persons be
the Union from dismissing Appellee. refused work, or be dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of their
• CFI: judgment is rendered enjoining the defendant Elizalde right to work and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of
Rope Factory, Inc. from dismissing the plaintiff from his present livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.
employment.
• In its appeal, the Union claimed that R.A. no. 3350 was Congress acted merely to relieve the exercise of religion, by certain
unconstitutional on the ground that: persons, of a burden that is imposed by union security agreements. It
was Congress itself that imposed that burden when it enacted the
1) prohibits all the members of a given religious sect from joining Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act 875), and, certainly, Congress, if it
any labor union if such sect prohibits affiliations of their members so deems advisable, could take away the same burden.
thereto; and, consequently, deprives said members of their
constitutional right to form or join lawful associations or APPLICATION: In this case, the means adopted by the Act to achieve
organizations guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and thus becomes that purpose (exempting the members of said religious sects from
obnoxious [to the] Constitution; coverage of union security agreements) is reasonable.
2) Impairs the obligation of contracts;
3) discriminates in favor of certain religious sects and affords no What the exception provides, is that members of said religious sects
protection to labor unions; cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said
4) violates the constitutional provision that no religious test shall be unions have closed shop agreements with the employers and that in
required for the exercise of a civil right; spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects
5) violates the equal protection clause; and cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole
6) the act violates the constitutional provision regarding the ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union.
promotion of social justice
Infringement of religious freedom may be justified only if there were an
ISSUE: WON RA 3350 infringes on the fundamental right to form lawful immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the
associations when it "prohibits all the members of a given religious sect community where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent or avoid such
from joining any labor union if such sect prohibits affiliations of their danger.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 36

• On June 20, 1960 Vicente Oximana was elected as the
CONCLUSION: It is clear, therefore, that the assailed act (Republic Act president of the Benquet-Balatoc Workers' Union (BBWU),
No. 3350), far from infringing the constitutional provision on freedom of having been elected to said position pursuant to the provisions
association, upholds and reinforces it. It does not prohibit the members of the constitution and by-laws of said union.
of said religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to • A complaint was lodged against Oximana before the Court of
said members the liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, Industrial Relations on February 2, 1961 by a prosecutor of said
with labor unions. court seeking to disqualify him as president of the union on the
strength of the provisions of Section 17(e) of Republic Act 875.
• Oximana alleged:
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: o that it fails to state a cause of action for it does not
show that it bears the sanction of at least 10% of the
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed, and the decision, dated entire membership of the union
August 26, 1965, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case o And that the aforesaid legal provision, being penal in
No. 58894, appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant character, does not apply to Oximana for he has been
Union. It is so ordered. an official of good standing long before the effectivity
of Republic Act 875
• April 1, 1961 the President of the Philippines granted Oximana
full, absolute and plenary pardon for the crime he had
committed in 1926, thereby restoring him to the full enjoyment
of his civil and political rights, one of which is the holding of the
1. Eliseo Flora et al v. Vicente Oximana position now disputed by complainants.
G.R. No. L-19745, January 31, 1964 Court of Industrial Relations: Dismissed case for lack of merit (were it
Bautista, Angelo, J. not for the absolute pardon granted to Oximana he would have been
Digest by: LIM disqualified. But said pardon has erased all the ill effects of his
conviction and had restored to him all his rights and privileges as a
TOPIC: Rights and Conditions of Membership; c. Election of Officers citizen as if he had not committed the crime at all.)

DOCTRINE: This order was affirmed by the court en banc. Hence the present
An absolute pardon restores a person to his civil and political rights, petition for review
one of which is the right to hold any office in any legitimate labor
organization. In the case at bar, the conviction in 1926 of the crime of ISSUE/S:
abusos deshonestos for which he served time in jail until 1930, cannot WON Oximana is disqualified from holding the position of President -
after his full and absolute pardon in 1961 serve to disqualify the NO
respondent president of a labor union from such office under Section
17(e) of Republic Act 875. HELD:

FACTS: NO, because considering Oximana’s prior conviction in 1926 which


• In 1926, Oximana was convicted of the crime of abusos falls in line with the provision violating Sec 17 of RA 875 which
deshonestos (indecency)

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 37

precludes persons who are convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, effect is to make the offender a new man'" (Stephens vs . State of ex
cannot be elected or is disqualified to be a union officer. rel. Goldsberry, 11 Okl. 262, 239 P. 450)

But here the situation of Oximana has changed since his conviction. It
appears that since the time of his conviction in 1926 up to the time the DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
complaint for disqualification was lodged against him in 1961, a long WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs
period of time has passed, and, in the meantime, he may have
reformed himself and become a new and repentant man. In fact,
when he organized the Benguet-Balatoc Worker's Union in 1948, he
became its president and had been re-elected as such continuously 18. Tancinco v Calleja
up to the present time without any indication that throughout his G.R. No. 78131; January 20, 1988
actuation as such official he has ever committed any misconduct or Ponente
act unbecoming his office that may disqualify him to continue Digest by: DIMLABS
deserving the confidence of the union and its members.
TOPIC: LABOR ORG; ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE
It is perhaps for this reason that on April 1, 1961 the President of the DOCTRINE: Eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the
Philippines granted him full, absolute and plenary pardon which applicable payroll period and employee's status during the applicable
restored to him the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights, one of payroll period. The payroll of the month next preceding the labor
which is the right to hold any office in any legitimate labor dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll period at or near
organization. We believe that the effect of this pardon is as the the peak of operations in case of employees in seasonal industries
President of the Philippines has stated: the restoration in full of
Oximana's civil and political rights, the effect of which is to blot out
any evil consequence of the crime he has committed. FACTS:
• The respondents are the organizers of Imperial Textile Mills Inc.
LAW: Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA)
Section 17(e) of Republic Act 875 provides as follows: • While respondents were preparing to file a petition for direct
"No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral certification of the union as sole and exclusive bargaining
turpitude shall be eligible for election to any office in a legitimate agent of ITM’s bargaining unit, the union’s VP (Dalamaco) was
labor organization or for appointment to any position involving the promoted to Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for
collection, custody, management, control or disbursement of its funds union membership
and any such person shall be disqualified from continuing to hold any • This incident, among others, lead to strike headed by the
office or such position in the organization” Lacanilao group, while the Tancinco group staged a strike
inside the company premises.
It has been held that "A full and complete pardon, granted after • After 4 days, strike was settled, agreement was entered
conviction, removes all penalties and legal disabilities, and restores the between Lacanilao and Tancinco group
defendant to all his civil rights." Continuing, the court went on to say • Pre-election conference was held but parties failed to agree
that "pardon completely destroys the effect of the judgment . . . (and) on the list of voters
`obliterates, in legal contemplation, the offense itself; and hence its • In another pre-election conference attended by MOLE
officers, ANGLO through its National Secretary, a certain Mr.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 38

Cornelio A. Sy made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56 • It is true that under article 242(c) of the LC, as amended, only
employees consisting of the Manila office employees, members of the union can participate in the election of union
members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers officers. The question however of eligibility to vote may be
of Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative employees of Mrs. determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and
Salazar.Cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar employee's status during the applicable payroll period. The payroll
• MOLE Pampanga protested the ruling but no action was taken of the month next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular
• Election of officers were conducted, votes of said 56 employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of
employees were not counted operations in case of employees in seasonal industries
• Lacnilao’s group won, 119 votes (3 votes over Tancinco) • In this case, considering that none of the parties insisted on the use
• Tancinco filed a protest for inclusion of the 56 votes of the payroll period-list as voting list and considering further that
• MOLE directed the inclusion of the votes the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled to be qualified
• Lacanilao appealed with BLR for membership, their act of joining the election by casting their
o Iglesia ni Kristo - allowing them to vote will be votes on after the 1986 agreement is a clear manifestation of their
anomalous since it is their policy not to participate in intention to join the union
any form of union activities • They must therefore be considered ipso facto members thereof
o non-time card employees, that they are managerial Said employees having exercised their right to unionism
employees • Their names could not have been included in the list of employee
o employees of the cooperative as non-ITM employees submitted on April 24, 1986 to the Bureau of Labor for the
• BLR said that exclusion was arbitrary BUT set aside the MOLE agreement to join the union was entered into only on May 10,
order since 51/56 are not yet union members at the time of 1986. Indeed the election was supervised by the Department of
election Labor where said 56 members were allowed to vote. Private
respondents never challenged their right to vote then
• It is however the position of private respondents that since a CBA
has been concluded between the local union and ITM
ISSUE/S: management the determination of the legal question raised
7. WON the 56 votes should be included. YES. herein may not serve the purpose which the union envisions and
may destroy the cordial relations existing between the
HELD: management and the union
o We do not agree. Existence of a CBA and cordial
• Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified relationship developed between the union and the
members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable management should not be a justification to frustrate the
said members to vote in the election of union's officers decision of the union members as to who should properly
• Per public respondent's findings the 1986 list consists of 158 union represent them in the bargaining unit
members only wherein 51 of the 56 challenged voters' names do
not appear. Adopting however a rough estimate of a total Dispositive Portion:
number of union members who cast their votes of some 333 and
excluding therefrom the 56 challenged votes, if the list is to be the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is
basis as to who the union members are then public respondent GRANTED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May
should have also disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters 13, 1987 is hereby made permanent. The questioned Resolution of

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 39

February 12, 1987 and the Decision of December 10, 1986 are hereby WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is
set aside for being null and void and the Order of July 25, 1986 of the GRANTED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May
Mediator Arbiter is hereby declared immediately executory. 13, 1987 is hereby made permanent. The questioned Resolution of
February 12, 1987 and the Decision of December 10, 1986 are hereby
Cost against private respondents. set aside for being null and void and the Order of July 25, 1986 of the
Mediator Arbiter is hereby declared immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.

ANSWER:
• YES. Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified
members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable
said members to vote in the election of union's officers
19. Manalad vs Trajano
• Per public respondent's findings the 1986 list consists of 158 union
G.R. No. 72772-73, June 28, 1989
members only wherein 51 of the 56 challenged voters' names do
Ponente: Regalado
not appear. Adopting however a rough estimate of a total
Digest by: Calleja
number of union members who cast their votes of some 333 and
excluding therefrom the 56 challenged votes, if the list is to be the
TOPIC: Rights and Conditions of Membership
basis as to who the union members are then public respondent
should have also disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters
DOCTRINE:
(Calibri, 11, single spaced)
• LAW: Under article 242(c) of the LC, as amended, only members of
abcdef
the union can participate in the election of union officers. The
question however of eligibility to vote may be determined through
the use of the applicable payroll period and employee's status
FACTS:
during the applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month next
• The parties herein are employees of United Dockhandlers, Inc.;
preceding the labor dispute in case of regular employees and the
they are members of rival groups in the Associated Port
payroll period at or near the peak of operations in case of
Checkers and Workers' Union (APCWU for short) in said
employees in seasonal industries
company,
• Sometime in 1982, the petitioners were disqualified from running
• CONCLUSION: In this case, considering that none of the parties
as candidates in the election of APCWU officers by the Med-
insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as voting list and
Arbiter. However, on appeal, said order was set aside by the
considering further that the 51 remaining employees were
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on October 31, 1984.
correctly ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of joining
• Thereafter, the election of officers and board members of the
the election by casting their votes on after the 1986 agreement is
union was held on November 26, 1984, with the candidates of
a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union
the petitioners, that is, Manalad, Leano and Puerto, winning
over those of the private respondents, who were Babula,
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
Mijares and Navarro, for the positions of president, treasurer and
auditor, respectively.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 40

• As a consequence, the respondents filed a petition for review years to commence from the time they assume office in
with this Court assailing the aforesaid order of October 31, 1984 execution of a final and executory resolution of the SC.
of the Bureau of Labor Relations which had declared the • Consequently, an election was held on December 1, 1988 to
aforesaid petitioners eligible to run for said union offices. elect new set of officers due to the expiration of Bulba et al’s
• While the petition for review filed by the respondents was term of office.
pending, the SC, in another case entitled “Associated Port
Checkers and Workers Union, et al. vs. Ricardo R. Manalad, et ISSUE/S:
al.” however issued a resolution declaring vacant all the 8. Whether the case became moot and academic because of
positions and ordered the winners of the November 26, 1984 the expiration of the terms of office of the union officers and
elections to stop acting as officers, and turn over immediately the election of officers on November 28, 1988.
the management of the union affairs to respondent Director of
the Bureau of Labor Relations as well as a call for a special
election. HELD:
• Pursuant thereto, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations
issued an order on July 10, 1985 to the effect that he was taking ANSWER: Yes, because the consistent ruling is that whenever certain
over the management of the affairs of said union, ordering events or circumstances have taken place during the pendency of
private respondents Babula and all other persons to cease the case which would render the case moot and academic, the
acting as officers of the union, and requiring them to turn over petition should be dismissed.
the union funds to said director. Subsequently, the Court’s
aforesaid resolution of July 3, 1985 was modified on July 17, 1985
by providing that the special election scheduled on July 20, LAW: Under Philippine Jurisprudence, It is pointless and unrealistic to
1985 shall be held under the personal supervision of respondent insist on annulling an election of officers whose terms had already
Director Trajano. Private respondents won the elections expired. We would have thereby a judgment on a matter which
although there was an attempt from the petitioners to have cannot have any practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if
them disqualified for their alleged refusal to comply with the existing, and which, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.
resolution of the SC.
• On July 26, 1985,Director Trajano still issued a resolution CONCLUSION: In this case, it is the better part of conventional or
proclaiming private respondents as the winners in the special pragmatic solutions in cases of this nature, absent overriding
election and duly elected officers of APCWU, with the following considerations to the contrary, to respect the will of the majority of the
observation: “The submission that Mr. Babula failed to workers who voted in the November 28, 1988 elections. Although
completely turn over management of the union to the decreed under a different setting, it is apropos to recall in this case
undersigned is within the competence and authority of the Our ruling that where the people have elected a man to office, it must
Supreme Court to pass upon considering that the mandate for be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and
such a turn-over came from the Court. character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or
• Meanwhile, the three-year term of the private respondents misconduct, if he had been guilty of any.
under the July 20, 1985 elections expired on July 20, 1988.
• However petitioners insist that they be declared the winners in CONCLUSION: Therefore, this case is DISMISSED for being moot and
said election (held on Nov. 26, 1984) with their terms of three (3) academic.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 41

salaries and wages. DP refused to effect deductions claiming
that the non-union employees were not amenable to it.
• Sept 1997 – UNION negotiated for the renewal of the CBA. DP
refused to renew unless the provision regarding entitlement to
20. Del Pilar Academy, Eduardo Espejo And Eliseo Ocampo, Jr., two (2) months summer vacation leave with pay will be
Petitioners, vs. Del Pilar Academy Employees Union, Respondent amended by limiting the same to teachers, who have
G.R. No. 170112 April 30, 2008 rendered at least three (3) consecutive academic years of
J. NACHURA satisfactory service.
Digest by: Bautista • UNION objected to the proposal claiming diminution of
benefits. DP refused to sign the CBA, resulting in a deadlock.
TOPIC: Assessments & check-off • UNION requested DP to submit the case for voluntary
arbitration, but the latter allegedly refused, prompting the
DOCTRINE: UNION to file a case for unfair labor practice with the Labor
Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not Arbiter against DP; Eduardo Espejo, its president; and Eliseo
members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be Ocampo, Jr., chairman of the Board of Trustees.
assessed reasonable fees equivalent to the dues and other fees paid • DP denied committing unfair labor practices against the
by the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union UNION. It justified the non-deduction of the agency fees by the
members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining absence of individual check off authorization from the non-
agreement; union employees.

When so stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement or ISSUE/S:


authorized in writing by the employees concerned, the Labor Code 9. WON Del Pilar must collect the said agency fees. à Yes.
and its Implementing Rules recognize it to be the duty of the employer Pursuant to Article 248 of the Labor Code.
to deduct the sum equivalent to the amount of union dues, as agency
fees, from the employees’ wages for direct remittance to the union. HELD:
The system is referred to as check off. No requirement of written • The collection of agency fees in an amount equivalent to
authorization from the non-union employees is necessary if the non- union dues and fees, from employees who are not union
union employees accept the benefits resulting from the CBA members, is recognized by Article 248(e) of the Labor Code.2
o When so stipulated in a collective bargaining
FACTS: agreement or authorized in writing by the employees
• Respondent Union (UNION) is the certified collective concerned, the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules
bargaining representative of teaching and non-teaching
2
personnel of Petitioner Del Pilar Academy (DP), an educational Art. 248.

institution operating in Imus, Cavite. xxx
• Sep 15, 1994 – UNION and DEL PILAR entered into a CBA
granting salary increase and other benefits to the teaching (e) Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized
and non-teaching staff. collective bargaining agent may be assessed reasonable fees equivalent to the dues and other fees paid
by the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the
• UNION assessed agency fees from non-union employees, and collective bargaining agreement. Provided, That the individual authorization required under Article 241,
requested DP to deduct said assessment from the employees’ paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of recognized collective bargaining agent.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 42

recognize it to be the duty of the employer to deduct 21. GABRIEL v SECRETARY OF LABOR
the sum equivalent to the amount of union dues, as G.R. No. 115949, March 16, 2000
agency fees, from the employees’ wages for direct Ponente: Quisimbing
remittance to the union. Digest by: ROMERO
o The system is referred to as check off.
o No requirement of written authorization from the non- TOPIC: Right and conditions of membership
union employees is necessary if the non-union
employees accept the benefits resulting from the CBA. DOCTRINE:
• The grant of annual salary increase is not the only provision in In a check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior
the CBA that benefited the non-union employees. These authorization from employees, deducts union dues or agency fees
provisions in the CBA surely benefited the non-union from the latters wages and remits them directly to the union.
employees, justifying the collection of, and the UNION’s Employee’s written consent is required for a valid reduction or check
entitlement to, agency fees. off of attorneys fees from any amount due to him.
o Accordingly, no requirement of written authorization
from the non-union employees is needed to effect a FACTS:
valid check off. Article 248(e) makes it explicit that • Petitioners comprise the Executive Board (EB) of the SolidBank
Article 241, paragraph (o), requiring written Union, the duly recognized collective bargaining agent for the
authorization is inapplicable to non-union members, rank and file employees of Solid Bank Corporation. Private
especially in this case where the non-union employees respondents are members of said union.
receive several benefits under the CBA. • October 1991 - the union’s EB decided to retain anew the
o The employee’s acceptance of benefits resulting from service of Atty. Ignacio Lacsina (now deceased) as union
a collective bargaining agreement justifies the counsel for the negotiations for a new CBA, to which the
deduction of agency fees from his pay and the union’s majority of all union members approved and signed a
entitlement thereto. resolution confirming EB’s decision
§ In this aspect, the legal basis of the union’s right • The resolution
to agency fees is neither contractual nor o Provided that: 10% of the total economic benefits that
statutory, but quasi-contractual, on the may be secured through the negotiations be given to
proscription against unjust Atty. Lacsina as attorneys fees
o Contained an authorization for SolidBank Corporation
CONCLUSION: WHEREFORE, the SC found that the CA did not err in to check-off said attorneys fees from the first lump sum
upholding the UNIONs right to collect agency fees, and DENIED the payment of benefits to the employees under the new
petition. CBA and to turn over said amount to Atty. Lacsina
and/or his duly authorized representative
• 21 Feb 1992 - the new CBA was signed.
• The bank, on request of the union, made payroll deductions for
attorneys fees from the CBA benefits paid to the union
members.

Respondents instituted a complaint against the petitioners and
the union counsel before the DOLE for illegal deduction of

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 43

attorneys fees as well as for quantification of the benefits in the any individual member of the contracting union: Provided,
1992 CBA. however, that attorneys fees may be charged against union
• Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint citing litis funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any
pendentia, forum shopping and failure to state a cause of contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the
action as their grounds. contrary shall be null and void."
• RULING OF MED-ARBITER: Granted the complaint
o Petitioners are directed to refund to the respondents Article 241(o):
the illegally deducted amount of attorneys fees from "Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no
the package of benefits special assessment, attorneys fees, negotiation fees or any
• RULING OF SECRETARY OF LABOR: Partially granted other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount
o that the ordered refund shall be limited to those union due to an employee without an individual written authorization
members who have not signified their conformity to the duly signed by the employee. The authorization should
check-off of attorney’s fees; specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the
o the directive on the payment of 5% attorney’s fees deduction."
should be deleted for lack of basis
• Petitioners argue that the General Membership Resolution Requisites for the validity of the special assessment for unions
authorizing the bank to check-off attorneys fee from the first incidental expenses, attorneys fees and representation expenses.
lump sum payment of the benefits to the employees under the (1) Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the
new CBA satisfies the legal requirements for such assessment members at the general membership meeting called for the
• Respondents claim that the check-off provision in question is purpose;
illegal because it was never submitted for approval at a (2) Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting;
general membership meeting called for the purpose and that (3) Individual written authorization for check off duly signed by the
it failed to meet the legal formalities employees concerned

ISSUE/S: CONCLUSION:
10. WON the deduction of attorneys fees by petitioners was valid • General Membership Resolution of the SolidBank Union did not
satisfy the requirements laid down by law for the validity of the
HELD: ten percent (10%) special assessment for unions incidental
ANSWER: No, attorneys fees may not be deducted or checked off expenses, attorneys fees and representation expenses.
from any amount due to an employee without his written consent • There were no individual written check off authorizations by the
employees concerned and so the assessment cannot be
LAW: In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on legally deducted by their employer.
prior authorization from employees, deducts union dues or agency
fees from the latters wages and remits them directly to the union. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Order dated June 3,
1994, of respondent Secretary of Labor signed by Undersecretary
Article 222 (b) : Bienvenido E. Laguesma is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
"No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any
kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or
conclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed on

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 44

off clause of the CBA, prompting KAMAPI to demand an
explanation.
• Several conciliation meetings were held between them, and when
these failed to bring about any amicable settlement, the parties
22. HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC. v. HON. JEROME JOAQUIN, agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration.
ET AL. • Holy Cross asserts that it could not comply with the check-off
G.R. No. 110007, October 18, 1996 provisions because contrary to established practice, KAMAPI failed
Narvasa to submit to the college comptroller every 8th day of the month, a
Digest by: PALIS list of employees from whom union dues and the corresponding
agency fees were to be deducted.
TOPIC: Rights and conditions of membership • Voluntary Arbitrator required Holy Cross to assume liability for the
union dues and assessments, and agency fees that it had failed to
DOCTRINE: deduct from its employees salaries.
No provision of law makes the employer directly liable for the payment
to the labor organization of union dues and assessments that the ISSUE/S:
former fails to deduct from its employees’ salaries and wages pursuant Whether Holy Cross is liable for allegedly failing to deduct union dues,
to a check-off stipulation. The employer’s failure to make the requisite assessments and agency fees
deductions may constitute a violation of a contractual commitment
for which it may incur liability for unfair labor practice. But it does not HELD:
by that omission, incur liability to the union for the aggregate of dues
or assessments uncollected from the union members, or agency fees ANSWER: NO. Holy Cross is not liable for allegedly failing to deduct
for non-union employees. union dues, assessments and agency fees.

The obligation to pay union dues and agency fees obviously devolves LAW: A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on
not upon the employer, but the individual employee. It is a personal agreement with the union recognized as the proper bargaining
obligation not demandable from the employer upon default or refusal representatives, or on prior authorization from its employees, deducts
of the employer to consent to a check-off. The only obligation of the union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages and remits them
employer under a check-off is to effect the deductions and remit the directly to the union.
collections to the union.
When stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement, or authorized
FACTS: in writing by the employees concerned, the Labor Code and its
• A CBA was entered into between petitioner Holy Cross, an Implementing Rules recognize it to be the duty of the employer to
educational institution, and the affiliate labor organization deduct sums equivalent to the amount of union dues from the
representing its employees, respondent KAMAPI. employees' wages for direct remittance to the union, in order to
• Holy Cross stopped deducting from the salaries and wages of its facilitate the collection of funds vital to the role of the union as
teachers and employees the corresponding union dues and representative of employees in a bargaining unit if not, indeed, to its
special assessment (payable by union members), and agency very existence.
fees (payable by non-members), in accordance with the check-

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 45

No provision of law makes the employer directly liable for the payment KAMAPI the amount equivalent to the uncollected union dues and
to the labor organization of union dues and assessments that the agency fees from August 1989 up to the time a new collective
former fails to deduct from its employees’ salaries and wages pursuant bargaining agreement is concluded, is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE; but in
to a check-off stipulation. The employer’s failure to make the requisite all other respects, the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator is hereby
deductions may constitute a violation of a contractual commitment AFFIRMED.
for which it may incur liability for unfair labor practice. But it does not
by that omission, incur liability to the union for the aggregate of dues
or assessments uncollected from the union members, or agency fees
for non-union employees.

The obligation to pay union dues and agency fees obviously devolves
not upon the employer, but the individual employee. It is a personal 23. VERCELES v. BLR-DOLE
obligation not demandable from the employer upon default or refusal G.R. No. 152322, February 15, 2005
of the employer to consent to a check-off. The only obligation of the Ponente Chico-Nazario, J.
employer under a check-off is to effect the deductions and remit the Digest by: Santos
collections to the union. The principle of unjust enrichment necessarily
precludes recovery of union dues—or agency fees—from the TOPIC: Rights and Conditions of Membership; Reportorial
employer, these being obligations pertaining to the individual worker Requirement; Prompt Submission
in favor of the bargaining union. Where the employer fails or refuses to
implement a check-off agreement, logic and prudence dictate that FACTS:
the union itself undertake the collection of union dues and ● Private respondents Rodel E. Dalupan, Efren J. De Ocampo,
assessments from its members (and agency fees from non-union Proceso Totto, Jr., Elizabeth Alarca, and Elvira S. Manalo are
employees); this, of course, without prejudice to suing the employer for members of the University of the East Employees’ Association
unfair labor practice. (UEEA).
● On 15 September 1997, they each received a Memorandum
APPLICATION: In this case, there was no basis for the Voluntary from the UEEA charging them with spreading false rumors and
Arbitrator to require Holy Cross to assume liability for the union dues creating disinformation among the members of the said
and assessments, and agency fees that it had failed to deduct from its association.
employees’ salaries on the proffered plea that contrary to established ● They were given 72 hours to reply to the memorandum
practice, KAMAPI had failed to submit to the college comptroller ● In their reply, the private respondents denied the allegations -
every 8th day of the month, a list of employees from whose pay union the said allegations were vague and are without legal basis
dues and the corresponding agency fees were to be deducted. that no intelligent reply could be made of it
● Petitioners issued another memorandum directing private
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Holy Cross is not liable for allegedly failing to respondents to reply within 72 hours, again
deduct union dues, assessments and agency fees. ● Eventually, the membership of the private respondents were
suspended by Verceles, in his capacity as president of the
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: association
WHEREFORE, the requirement imposed on petitioner Holy Cross by the ● Private respondents Dalupan et al, filed a complaint for illegal
challenged decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator, to pay respondent suspension willful and unlawful violation of UEEA constitution

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 46

and by-laws, refusal to render financial and other reports, March 1999. The last association’s meeting was conducted on 21 April
deliberate refusal to call general and special meetings, illegal 1995, and the copy of the minutes thereon was submitted to BLR-DOLE
holdover of terms and damages was filed by the respondents only on 24 February 1998.
against herein petitioners Ernesto C. Verceles, Diosdado F.
Trinidad, Salvador G. Blancia, Rosemarie De Lumban, Felicitas The passage of General Assembly Resolution No. 10 dated 10
Ramos, Miguel Teaño, Jaime Bautista and Fidel Acero before December 1997 and Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, which supposedly
the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital cured the lapses committed by the association’s officers and
Region (DOLE-NCR). reiterated the approval of the general membership of the acts and
● RDO’s decision: collateral actions of the association’s officers cannot redeem the
o Lift suspension petitioners from their predicament. The obligation to hold meetings
o Make open and available the union’s/association/s and render financial reports is mandated by UEEA’s constitution and
books of accounts and other documents pertaining to by-laws. This fact was never denied by the petitioners. Their eventual
the union funds and thereby explain the financial status compliance, as what happened in this case, shall not release them
of the union from the obligation to accomplish these things in the future.
o To regularly conduct special and general membership Prompt compliance in rendering financial reports together with the
meetings in accordance with the union’s constitution holding of regular meetings with the submission of the minutes thereon
and by-laws; with the BLR-DOLE and DOLE-NCR shall negate any suspicion of
o To immediately hold/conduct an election of officers in dishonesty on the part of UEEA’s officers. This is not only true with UEEA,
accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws. but likewise with other unions/associations, as this matter is imbued
● Petitioner’s appealed but the BLR-DOLE dismissed their appeal with public interest. Undeniably, transparency in the official
● Petitioner’s argument before the SC: undertakings of union officers will bolster genuine trade unionism in the
o That the non-holding of meetings and alleged non- country.
submission of reports are moot and academic
o The petitioners likewise maintain that the passage of DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
General Assembly Resolution No. 10 dated 10 WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision and Resolution
December 1997 and Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, of the Court of Appeals subjects of the instant case, are affirmed.
following the application of the principle that the Costs against the petitioners.
sovereign majority rules, cured any liability that may
have been brought about by their belated actions.

ISSUE/S:
WON non-holding of meetings and alleged non-submission of reports
are moot and academic 9. ISAE vs. Quisumbing
G.R. No. 128845|June 1, 2000
HELD: No, the Supreme Court held that the non-submission of the J. Kapunan
reports are NOT moot and academic by their eventual compliance. Digest by: HICETA
As found by the Court of Appeals, the financial statements for the
years 1995 up to 1997 were submitted to DOLE-NCR only on 06 TOPIC: Bargaining unit—Principles in determining bargaining unit
February 1998 while that for the year 1998 was submitted only on 16

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 47

School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty,
DOCTRINE: classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer,
comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and
to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate
collective bargaining provisions of the law." The factors in determining twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The School justifies the
the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires
employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees' have to endure, namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited
interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of tenure.
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests
Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
employment status. The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's were held on June 1995, petitioner International School Alliance of
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination Educators (ISAE), "a legitimate labor union and the collective
which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining representative of all faculty members" of the School,
bargaining rights. contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-
hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should
EMERGENCY RECIT: Petitioners work under private respondent be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a
International School. The school hires both local and foreign hires. deadlock between the parties.
Foreign hires are granted with more benefits and higher salary.
Respondent says this is because of dislocation factor and limited ISSUE/S: Whether foreign-hires should be included in the same
tenure. Petitioners contested the difference in salary rates between bargaining unit as the local-hires.
foreign and local hires. They claim that it is discriminatory to Filipinos
and it constitutes racial discrimination. The Court ruled that foreign- HELD: No. Foreign-hires should not be included in the same bargaining
hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires. unit as the local-hires.

FACTS:
We agree, however, that foreign-hires do not belong to the same
Private respondent International School, Inc. (the School), pursuant to
bargaining unit as the local-hires.
Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational institution
established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel
A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer,
and other temporary residents. To enable the School to continue
comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited
instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to
to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it
collective bargaining provisions of the law." The factors in determining
either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities, such
the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the
personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and
employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees'
regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been
interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
or will be enacted for the protection of employees. Accordingly, the
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests
Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 48

employment status. The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's • Med-Arbiter Danilo issued an Order ordering the conduct of
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination certification among the supervisors and exempting employees
which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San
bargaining rights. Fernando and Otis as one bargaining unit.
• SMC filed an Appeal, pointing out the Med-Arbiter’s error of
It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to grouping together all 3 separate plants into 1 bargaining unit
be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective and in including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions
bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows are confidential in nature.
that these groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have • Undersecretary Bienvenido granted respondent’s Appeal and
limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign- ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin
hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as for determination of the true classification of each of the
the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted employees sought to be included in the appropriate
to local-hires. These benefits, such as housing, transportation, shipping bargaining unit.
costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are reasonably • 1st MR: SMC Union filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
related to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the Undersecretary granted and directed the conduct of separate
former from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory
local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the 3
respective collective bargaining rights. plants.
• 2nd MR: SMC filed an MR. Undersecretary granted.
o Applied Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC à
Confidential employees, like managerial employees, are not
allowed to form, join or assist a labor union for purposes of
25. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND collective bargaining.
ERNESTO L. PONCE vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA (Undersecretary o Applying in the case at bar, S3 and S4 and the so-called
of Labor and Employment), HON. DANILO L. REYNANTE (Med-Arbiter) exempt employees are admittedly confidential employees
and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (SMC) and therefore are not allowed to form, join or assist a labor
G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997 union for purposes of collective bargaining. Thus, S3, S4 and
Romero, J. the so-called exempt employees are excluded from those who
Digest by: DIZON could participate in the certification election.
• Hence, this Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of
TOPIC: Bargaining Agent Preliminary Injunction seeking to reverse and set aside the Order of
public respondent Undersecretary Bienvenido which excluded the
DOCTRINE: see underlined texts employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 and the so-called
exempt employees from the proposed bargaining unit and rules
FACTS: out their participation in the certification election.
• Petitioner union filed before DOLE a Petition for District
Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors ISSUE/S:
and exempt employees of SMC Magnolia Poultry Products
Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 49

(1) WON S3, S4 and the exempt employees of the company are
confidential employees, like managerial employees, hence The Court held that “if these managerial employees would belong to
ineligible from joining a union. – NO or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their
(2) If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. The Union
the 3 plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit. – can also become company-dominated with the presence of
YES managerial employees in Union membership.”

HELD: An important element of the “confidential employee rule” is the


(1) The Court rules that said employees do not fall within the term employee’s need to use labor relations information. Thus, in
“confidential employees” who may be prohibited from joining a union. determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a key question
frequently considered is the employee’s necessary access to
They are not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who, confidential labor relations information.
under Article 245 of the Labor Code, are not eligible to join, assist or
form any labor organization. In the very same provision, they are not (2) The employees in the instant case have “community or mutuality of
allowed membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file interest” which is the standard in determining the proper constituency
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of of a collective bargaining unit. They all belong to the Magnolia Poultry
their own. Division of SMC. Although they belong to 3 different plants, they
perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and
“Confidential employees” are those who (1) assist or act in a compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in
confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and concerted activities. The fact that the 3 plants are located in 3
effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The 2 different places is immaterial. Geographical location can be
criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the
considered a confidential employee — that is, the confidential employees are not sacrificed.
relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and
the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as “a group of
labor relations. employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best
course of their duties, become aware of management policies suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be collective bargaining provisions of the law.”
accomplished by the ”confidential employee rule.” The broad
rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who
position involving a potential conflict of interests. “Management have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions
should not be required to handle labor relations matters through and other subjects of collective bargaining.
employees who are represented by the union with which the
company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of Moreover, separate bargaining units in the 3 different plants of the
their duties may obtain advance information of the company’s division will fragmentize the employees of the said division, thus greatly
position with regard to contract negotiations, the disposition of diminishing their bargaining leverage. This will clearly frustrate the
grievances, or other labor relations matters.” provisions of the Labor Code and the mandate of the Constitution.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 50

• Also on the same date, the Samahan ng mga Manggagawa
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, the the assailed Order or ng Express Coat Enterprise, Inc. (Union C) filed a PCE to
Undersecretary Laguesma is hereby SET ASIDE and the Order of the represent the rank and file employees of Express Coat.
Med-Arbiter is REINSTATED under which a certification election among
the supervisors (level 1 to 4) and exempt employees of the San Miguel Super Lamination, Express Lamination and Express Coat (Companies)
Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San all represented by one counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
Fernando, and Otis as one bargaining unit is ordered conducted. that there is no employer-employee relationship (EER) between these
establishments and the bargaining units that Unions A, B and C seek to
represent as well as these unions’ respective members
• Super Lamination posited that a majority of the persons who
were enumerated in the list of members and officers of Union A
were not its employees but were employed by either Express
26. ERSON ANG LEE vs SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER Lamination or Express Coat.
LAMINATION
G.R. No. 193816, October 19, 1994 All three PCEs of the Unions were subsequently denied
Sereno,C J: • It was ruled on the ground that there was no existing EER
Digest by: Garcia between the members of the unions and the companies
concerned.
TOPIC: Bargaining Agent
On appeal before the Office of the DOLE Secretary: ruled in favor of
FACTS: the unions and granted the PCEs
Petitioner Erson Ang Lee, through Super Lamination, is a duly registered • DOLE found that Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and
entity principally engaged in the business of providing lamination Express Coat were sister companies that had a common
services to the general public human resource department responsible for hiring and
• Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Super disciplining the employees of the three companies.
Lamination Services (Union A) is a legitimate labor • The same department was found to have also given them
organization, which is also a local chapter af liate of the daily instructions on how to go about their work and where to
National Federation of Labor Unions — Kilusang Mayo Uno. report for work.
• It appears that Super Lamination is a sole proprietorship under • It also found that the three companies involved
petitioner's name, while Express Lamination and Express Coat constantly rotated their workers, and that the latter's
are duly incorporated entities separately registered with the identification cards had only one signatory. These
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). circumstances showed that the companies were engaged in
a work-pooling scheme, in light of which they might be
On Mar 7, 2008: Union A filed a Petition for Certification Election (PCE) considered as one and the same entity for the purpose of
to represent all the rank and file employees of Super Lamination determining the appropriate bargaining unit in a certification
• Notably on the same date, Express Lamination Workers’ Union election.
(Union B) also filed a PCE to represent all the rank and file
employees of Express Lamination. Main Argument of the Petitioner: argues that there is no showing that
the rank-and- file employees of the three companies would constitute

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 51

an appropriate bargaining unit on account of the latter's different separate juridical personalities will be disregarded, if they use that
geographical locations. scheme to defeat the workers' right to collective bargaining
• The employees' right to collectively bargain with their
Hence this petition employers is necessary to promote harmonious labor-
management relations in the interest of sound and stable
ISSUES: industrial peace.
1. Whether the rank and file employees of Super Lamination, Express
Lamination and Express Coat constitute an appropriate bargaining 2. Yes. While it is true that separate corporations cannot be treated as
unit. a single bargaining unit even if their businesses are related as these
2. Whether the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate companies are indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical
veil is warranted. personalities there are instances when their separate personality will
be disregarded under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.
HELD: • It has done so in cases where a separate legal entity is used to
defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or
1. YES. The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is defend crime, among other grounds.
the application of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if • In this case, the pieces of evidence (such as the companies
it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual were engaged in the same business, employees were hired
interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of through a common human resource department, the workers
collective bargaining were constantly rotated and that the common human
• We have ruled that geographical location can be completely resource department imposed disciplinary sanctions and
disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the directed the daily performance of all the members of Unions A,
employees are not sacrificed. B & C) adduced by the respondents show that the three
companies are under the control and management of the
In the present case, there was communal interest among the rank- same party – petitioner Ang Lee.
and-file employees of the three companies based on the finding that
they were constantly rotated to all three companies, and that they We hold that if we allow petitioner and the two other companies to
performed the same or similar duties whenever rotated continue obstructing the holding of the election in this manner, their
• Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment employees and their respective unions will never have a chance to
status and working conditions were so substantially similar as to choose their bargaining representative.
justify a conclusion that they shared a community of interest. • We take note that all three establishments were unorganized.
This finding is consistent with the policy in favor of a single- That is, no union therein was ever duly recognized or certified
employer unit, unless the circumstances require otherwise. as a bargaining representative.
• The more solid the employees are, the stronger is their
bargaining capacity. Therefore, it is only proper that, in order to safeguard the right of the
workers and Unions A, B, and C to engage in collective bargaining,
As correctly observed by the lower courts, while there is no prohibition the corporate veil of Express Lamination and Express Coat must be
on the mere act of engaging in a work-pooling scheme as sister pierced.
companies, that act will not be tolerated, and the sister companies' • The separate existence of Super Lamination, Express
Lamination, and Express Coat must be disregarded. In effect,

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 52

we affirm the lower tribunals in ruling that these companies mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees in violation
must be treated as one and the same unit for purposes of of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
holding a certification election. • KML argued that even if 41 of its members are indeed
supervisory employees and therefore excluded from its
FALLO: PETITION IS DENIED. membership, the certification election could still proceed
because the required number of the total rank and file
employees necessary for certification purposes is still sustained.
• KML also claimed that its legitimacy as a labor union could not
be collaterally attacked in the certification election
proceedings but only through a separate and independent
action for cancellation of union registration.
• The Med-Arbiter rendered judgment dismissing for lack of merit
the petition for certification election. Since Article245 of the
Labor Code expressly prohibits supervisory employees from
joining the union of rank and file employees, the Med-Arbiter
concluded that KML is not a legitimate labor organization.
27. LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED V. KILUSANG • The Office of the Secretary of DOLE rendered its Decision
MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA (KML-INDEPENDENT) granting KML’s appeal, and held that KML’s legitimacy as a
G.R. No. 169754, February 23, 2011 union could not be collaterally attacked. It declared that any
Del Castillo, J. violation of the provision of Article 245 does not ipso facto
Digest by: OBNAMIA render the existence of the labor organization illegal. (the law
only states that mixture of members will not automatically
TOPIC: Determination of representation status cancel the union’s legitimacy; although it is prohibited)
• LEGEND filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
DOCTRINE: • Legend argues that it already file a separate petition for
The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does cancellation of KML’s registration which should bar the
not preclude petition for certification election certification election which was granted by BLR but later
reversed by DOLE upholding KML’s legitimacy
The legitimacy of the legal personality of a labor organization may not • CA Affirmed DOLE.
be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action
instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it. ISSUE/S:
11. WON the petition for cancellation of union registration bar
certification election - NO
FACTS: 12. WON legitimacy of legal personality of a labor organization
• KML filed for Certification Election with the Med-Arbitration Unit may be attacked collaterally – NO
of the DOLE
• LEGEND moved to dismiss the petition alleging that KML is not a HELD
legitimate labor organization because its membership is a

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 53

(1) ANSWER: No, because at the time the petition for certification was CONCLUSION: A petition for cancellation of union registration will not
filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal personality bar a petition for certification election
to file the same.
(2) ANSWER: No, the legitimacy of a labor organization cannot be
LAW: (no provision was provided in the case) It, however, provided for subject of collateral attacks because once a certificate of registration
the following jurisprudence: is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a
• Pepsi-Cola Products Phil Inc. v. Secretary of Labor: “an order to collateral attack.
hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of
the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the LAW: Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V SEC. 5. Effect of
respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the registration. The labor organization or workers association shall be
respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of
personality to perform such act absent an order directing the issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot
cancellation.” thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only
• Capitol Medical Center, Inc. V. Hon. Trajano: “That there is a in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these
pending cancellation proceedings against the respondent Rules.
Union is not a bar to set in motion the mechanics of collective • In Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of
bargaining. If a certification election may still be ordered the Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, the
despite the pendency of a petition to cancel the unions Court ruled that such legal personality may not be subject to a
registration certificate x x x more so should the collective collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted
bargaining process continue despite its pendency.” particularly for the purpose of assailing it.
• Association of Court of Appeals Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja: • The legal personality of a legitimate labor organization cannot
“an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the be subject to a collateral attack.
pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration • The law is very clear on this matter. The Implementing Rules
certificate of the respondent union. a certification election stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered
can be conducted despite pendency of a petition to cancel and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its
the union registration certificate.” certificate of registration.
• Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a • Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal
certification election may be conducted during the pendency personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack.
of the cancellation proceedings. • It may be questioned only in an independent petition for
• This is because at the time the petition for certification was cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of
filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal the Implementing Rules.
personality to file the same.
• There is therefore no basis for LEGENDs assertion that the DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of dated September 18, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 72848 insofar as it affirms
KMLs activities, including its filing of the petition for certification the May 22, 2002 Decision and August 20, 2002 Resolution of the Office
election and its demand to collectively bargain. of the Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment is
AFFIRMED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it declares
that the March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations in

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 54

Case No. RO300-0108-CP-001 upholding that the legitimacy of KML as petitioners (Catalino et al.) and private respondents (Regalado
a labor organization has long become final and executory for failure et al.) under the supervision of a representation officer (DOLE
of LEGEND to appeal the same, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. appointed)
(ung partially granted only pertains to the issue if on time nagfile ng • The official ballot contained the ff instructions: (1) only mark
appeal si legends, SC says oo but talo ka pa din) check or X inside the box specified; (2) DO NOT write any other
markings.
• The election results were: (1) Catalino’s group – 133; (2)
Regalado’s – 133; (3) spoiled – 6; Total votes cast- 272.
• Catalino filed a motion which was treated as protest by Med-
28. CATALINO ALGIRE and OTHER OFFICERS OF UNIVERSAL ROBINA arbiter, it was alleged that 1 voter placed 2 checks inside the
TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), petitioners, box opposite the phrase “Catalino Aligre and his officers”
vs. REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, o Catalino insists that it should not have been declared as
respondents. spoiled ballot, the same beinga valid vote in their favor.
G.R. No. 97622 October 19, 1994 o 2 checks made it clearer the intention of the voter to
ROMERO, J. vote in their favor.
Digest by: SALIVA, G.M. • Med-arbiter Dela Cruz declared that the question ballot is valid
counting the same in Catalino’s favor and accordingly certified
TOPIC: Determination of Representation Status the Petitioners’ group as the UNION’s ELECTED OFFICERS.
DOCTRINE: In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of • Regalado faction appealed to the SOLE à granted the appeal
the union officers that should best represent them in the forthcoming reversing the Med-arbiters order. It entered a new order of
collective bargaining negotiations should be achieved through the calling another election of officers of the UNIVERSAL ROBINA
democratic process of an election, the proper forum where the true TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED EES with the same choices as in the
will of the majority may not be circumvented but clearly defined. The NOV 1990 election.
workers must be allowed to freely express their choice once and for all • The election was thrice reset (final: April 5 1991)
in a determination where anything is open to their sound judgment • Catalino’s faction filed MR à denied hence this certiorari
and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation is minimized, if not petition with prayer for the issuance of TRO.
eliminated, without any unnecessary delay and/or maneuvering. o Catalino contends that: a representation officer can
validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from the
conduct of the elections, but the determination of the
FACTS: validity of the questioned ballot is not within his
• The case arose out of the election of the rightful officers to competence. Therefore, any ruling made by the
represent the URTMSEU, “the union” in the CBA with the representation officer concerning the validity of the
management of Universal Robina. ballot is deemed an absolute nullity.
• The union thru private respondent Regalado file a petition for
the holding of an election of union officers with Arbit branch of ISSUE/S: What was held, a certification election or a CONSENT
DOLE. ELECTION?
• Med-arbiter de la Cruz issued an order directing an election.
• It was AGREED in a pre-election conference that election by HELD: To resolve the issue of union representation at the Universal
secret ballot will be conducted on NOV 15 1990 between Robina Textile plant, what was agreed to be held at the company's

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 55

premises and which became the root of this controversy, was a
consent election, not a certification election. Facts:
• An intra-union rivalry exists between the petitioner and the
It is unmistakable that the election held on November 15, 1990 respondent Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial
was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an Workers Union (PACIWU)
agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of • On June 13, 1985, Respondent, PACIWU, filed a petition for
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective certification election
bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing • Petitioner, Warren Mfg. Workers Union; filed a MD on the
to do with the import and effort of a certification election. The ruling of ground that there exists a CBA between the respondent and
DOLE's representative in that election that the questioned ballot is the Warren Mfg. Union which took effect upon its signing on
spoiled is not based on any legal provision or rule justifying or requiring July 16, 1985 and to expire on July 31, 1986.
such action by such officer but simply in pursuance of the intent of the • While the petition was under hearing, PACIWU filed a Notice of
parties, expressed in the written instructions contained in the ballot, Strike and on conciliation meeting, a Return-to-Work
which is to prohibit unauthorized markings thereon other than a check Agreement was signed on July 25, 1985, stipulating:
or a cross, obviously intended to identify the votes in order to preserve …parties have agreed to the holding of a
the sanctity of the ballot. consent election among the rank and file on August 25,
If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the 1985…
representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it • "On August 25, 1985, said consent election was held among
should have done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure the following choices
or inaction to assail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of 1. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial
any defect or irregularity arising from said election. Workers Union (PACIWU);
2. Warren Mfg. Workers Union;
3. No Union.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and • The results yielded:
the challenged decision is hereby AFFIRMED. 1. PACIWU 94
2. WMWU 193
• Feeling aggrieved, however, PACIWU filed an Election Protest
• On December, 1985 a Notice of Strike was again filed by the
union this time with the Valenzuela branch office of this
Ministry, and after conciliation, the parties finally agreed:
29. Warren Manufacturing Workers Union v. BLR, "In consideration of this payment, . . . individual
G.R. No. 76185, March 30, 1988 complaints and PACIWU hereby agree…amicably
PARAS, J: settled and withdrawn/dismissed”
Submitted By ESPIRITU • On June 5, 1986, the PACIWU filed a petition for certification
election followed by the filing of a petition for the same
Topic: 6. Determination of representation status: a. Voluntary purposes by the Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren
recognition b. Certification election Manufacturing Corporation-Alliance of Nationalist and
Genuine Labor Org.
Doctrine • Warren Manufacturing Corporation opposed on the grounds:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 56

1. neither petition has 30% support; their right to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining
2. that both are barred by the one-year no representative after the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom
certification election law and period
3. the existence of a duly ratified CBA
• Med Arbiter Ordered the holding of certification election within • In addition, the Med-Arbiter in the Return to Work Agreement
twenty (20) days from receipt to determine the exclusive emphasize:
bargaining representative "It is clearly understood that the certified union in the
• Petitioner argue: said projected election shall respect and administer the
1. Section 3, Rule V of the Implementing Rules and existing CBA at the company until its expiry date on July
Regulations of the Labor Code provides, among 31, 1986."
others: • Therefore, It is, therefore, unmistakable that the election thus
". . . however no certification election held on August 25, 1985 was not for the purpose of determining
may be held within one (1) year from the which labor union should be the bargaining representative but
date of the issuance of the declaration only to determine which labor union shall administer the said
of a final certification result." existing contract because there should be no obstacle to the
2. Article 257, Title VII, Book V of the Labor Code right of the employees to petition for a certification election at
provides: the proper time, that is, within 60 days prior to the expiration of
"No certification election issue shall be the three year period
entertained by the Bureau in any No Obstacle of Early Collective Bargaining Agreement
Collective Bargaining Agreement • The premature agreement entered into by the petitioner and
existing between the employer and a the Company on June 2, 1986 does not adversely affect the
legitimate labor organization." petition for certification election filed by respondent PACIWU"
. • According to Sect 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Issue: WON the certificate election is barred either by the one-year no Implementing the Labor Code. Effect of Early Agreement . —
certification election rule and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule.
The representation case shall not, however, be
Held: NO adversely affected by a collective agreement
Consent Election vs Certificate Election submitted before or during the last sixty days of a
• A consent election is an agreed one, its purpose being merely subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
to determine the issue of majority representation of all the representation case
workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit while a More than 30 %
certification election is aimed at determining the sole and • The Med-Arbiter found that a sufficient number of employees
exclusive bargaining agent. it is a separate and distinct signified their consent to the filing of the petition and 107
process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a employees authorized intervenor to file a motion for
certification election. intervention. Otherwise stated, he found that the petition and
intervention were supported by more than 30% of the members
• Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle of the bargaining unit.
the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing Disposition:
CBA although it does not preclude the workers from exercising WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 57

employee belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not
a member of the union cannot vote in the union election, unless
otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the
union. Verily, union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-
union activity.
30. UST FACULTY UNION, GIL Y. GAMILLA, et al. v. DIR. BENEDICTO
In both elections, there are procedures to be followed. Thus, the
ERNESTO R. BITONIO, JR.
October 4, 1996 election cannot properly be called a union election,
( there is a mistake in the title provided in the syllabus – it should not
because the procedure laid down in the USTFUs CBL for the election of
be UST Faculty Union v. Gamilla )
officers was not followed. It could not have been a certification
G.R. No. 131235, November 16, 1999.
election either, because representation was not the issue, and the
Ponente: Panganiban, J.
proper procedure for such election was not followed. The
Digest by: Yap
participation of non-union members in the election aggravated its
irregularity.
TOPIC: 6. Determination of Representation Status --
The importance of a unions constitution and bylaws cannot be
DOCTRINES: Members’s frustration over the performance of the union overemphasized. They embody a covenant between a union and its
officers, as well as their fears of “fraudulent” elections to be held under members and constitute the fundamental law governing the members
the latter’s supervision, could not justify the disregard of the union’s rights and obligations. [21]As such, the unions constitution and bylaws
constitution and by-laws. should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to law, good
morals or public policy.
Union Election v. Certification Election Ratification of a new CBA executed between the new officers of
the union and management does not have the effect of validating a
A union election is held pursuant to the unions constitution and void union election – the ratification only refers only to the terms of the
bylaws, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A new CBA, not the issue of union leadership. ---- The ratification of the
union election should be distinguished from a certification election, new CBA executed between the petitioners and the University of
which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and Santo Tomas management did not validate the void October 4, 1996
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate election. Ratified were the terms of the new CBA, not the issue of
bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining.[18] Specifically, union leadership -- a matter that should be decided only by union
the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a members in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance
majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor of proper procedures.
organization and, in the affirmative case, by which particular labor
organization.[19]
In a certification election, all employees belonging to the FACTS:
appropriate bargaining unit can vote.[20] Therefore, a union member • Respondents Marino, et. al. are duly elected officers of the UST
who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to Faculty Union.
vote in said election. However, the reverse is not always true; an • On 21 September 1996, respondent Collantes, in her capacity
as Secretary General of UNION, posted a notice addressed to
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 58

all UNION members announcing a general assembly to be the 04 October 1996 election. Respondents Marinos alleged
held on 05 October 1996. Among others, the general assembly that the holding of the same violated the TRO issued in Case
was called to elect UNION's next set of officers. Through the No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001. Accusing petitioners of usurpation,
notice, the members were also informed of the constitution of o respondents Marinos characterized the election as
a Committee on Elections (COMELEC) to oversee the spurious for being violative of UNION's CBL, specifically
elections. because the general assembly resulting in the election
• On 01 October 1996, some of herein petitioners filed a of petitioners was not called by the Board of Officers of
separate petition with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, directed the UNION;
against herein respondents Marinos and the members of the o there was no compliance with the ten-day notice rule
COMELEC. Docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001, the required by Section 1, Article VIII of the CBL;
petition alleged that the COMELEC was not constituted in o the supposed elections were conducted without a
accordance with UNION's constitution and by-laws (CBL) and COMELEC being constituted by the Board of Officers in
that no rules had been issued to govern the conduct of the 05 accordance with Section 1, Article IX of the CBL;
October 1996 election. o the elections were not by secret balloting as required
• On 02 October 1996, the secretary general of UST, upon the by Section 1, Article V and Section 6, Article IX of the
request of the various UST faculty club president, issued notices CBL, and,
allowing all faculty members to hold a convocation on 04 o the general assembly was convened by faculty
October 1996. Denominated as [a] general faculty assembly, members some of whom were not members of UNION,
the convocation was supposed to discuss the `state of the so much so that non- UNION members were allowed to
unratified UST-UNION CBA' and `status and election of [Union] vote in violation of Section 1, Article V of the CBL.
officers.' • On 24 October 1996, respondents Marinos filed another urgent
• On 04 October 1996, the med-arbiter in Case No. NCR-OD-M- ex-parte motion for a TRO, this time alleging that petitioners
9610-001 issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against had served the former a notice to vacate the union office.
respondents enjoining them from conducting the election • For their part, petitioners moved to dismiss the original petition
scheduled on 05 October 1996. and the subsequent motion on jurisdictional grounds. Both the
• Also on 04 October 1996, and as earlier announced by the UST petition and the motion were captioned to be for "Prohibition,
secretary general, the general faculty assembly was held as Injunction with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and [TRO]."
scheduled. The general assembly was attended by members According to the petitioners, the med-arbiter has no jurisdiction
of the UNION and, as admitted by the petitioners, also by 'non- over petitions for prohibition, 'including the ancillary remedies
[Union] members [who] are members in good standing of the of restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, which are
UST Academic Community Collective Bargaining Unit.’ On this merely incidental to the main petition for PROHIBITION'.
occasion, petitioners were elected as UNION's new set of • Petitioners also averred that they now constituted the new set
officers by acclamation and clapping of hands. of union officers having been elected in accordance with law
• The election of the petitioners came about upon a motion of after the term of office of respondents Marinos had expired.
one Atty. Lopez, admittedly not a member of UNION, that the They further maintained that respondents Marinos' scheduling
UNION CBL and 'the rules of the election be suspended and of the 5 October 1996 elections was illegal because no rules
that the election be held [on] that day.' and regulations governing the elections were promulgated as
• On 11 October 1996, respondents Marinos filed a petition required by UNION's CBL and that one of the members of the
seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the results of COMELEC was not a registered member of UNION.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 59

• Petitioners likewise noted that the elections called by the Director Bitonio rejected petitioners' contention that it was a
respondents Marinos should have been postponed to allow legitimate exercise of their right to self-organization. He ruled
the promulgation of rules and regulations and to 'insure a free, that the CBL, which constituted the covenant between the
clean, honest and orderly elections and to afford at the same union and its members, could not be suspended during the
time the greater majority of the general membership to October 4, 1996 general assembly of all faculty members, since
participate' that assembly had not been convened or authorized by the
• Finally, petitioners contended that the holding of the general UNION. Director Bitonio likewise held that the October 4, 1996
faculty assembly on 04 October 1996 was under the control of election could not be legitimized by the recognition of the
the Council of College/Faculty Club Presidents in cooperation newly "elected" set of officers by UST or by the alleged
with the USTFU Reformist Alliance and that they received the ratification of the new CBA by the general membership of the
TRO issued in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001 only on 07 UNION.
October 1996 and were not aware of the same on 04 October
1996.
• On 03 December 1996, petitioners and UST allegedly entered
into another CBA covering the period from 01 June 1996 to 31 ISSUES:
May 2001. • Whether the Collective Bargaining Unit of all the faculty
• Respondents Marinos again moved for the issuance of a TRO members in that General Faculty Assembly had the right in that
to prevent petitioners from making further representations that General Faculty Assembly to suspend the provisions of the CBL
[they] had entered into a new agreement with UST. of the UNION regarding the elections of officers of the union
Respondents Marinos also reiterated their earlier stand that o NO. Petitioners contend that the October 4, 1996
petitioners were usurping the former's duties and functions and assembly "suspended" the union's CBL. They aver that
should be stopped from continuing such acts. the suspension and the election that followed were in
• On 11 December 1996, over petitioners' insistence that the accordance with their "constituent and residual powers
issue of jurisdiction should first be resolved, the med-arbiter as members of the collective bargaining unit to choose
issued a TRO directing the respondents to cease and desist their representatives for purposes of collective
from performing any and all acts pertaining to the duties and bargaining." Again they cite the numerous anomalies
functions of the officers and directors of UNION. allegedly committed by the respondents Marinoas
• In the meantime, petitioners claimed that the new CBA was UNION officers. This argument does not persuade.
purportedly ratified by an overwhelming majority of UST's o First, the general faculty assembly was not the proper
academic community on 12 December 1996. For this reason, forum to conduct the election of UNION officers. Not all
petitioners moved for the dismissal of what it denominated as who attended the assembly were members of the
respondents Marinos' petition for prohibition on the ground that union; some, apparently, were even disqualified from
this had become moot and academic. becoming union members, since they represented
• Petitioners appealed the med-arbiter's Decision to the labor management.
secretary, who transmitted the records of the case to the o Second, the grievances of the petitioners could have
Bureau of Labor Relations. been brought up and resolved in accordance with the
• Agreeing with the med-arbiter that the UNION officers' procedure laid down by the union's CBL and by the
purported election held on October 4, 1994 was void for Labor Code. They contend that their sense of
having been conducted in violation of the union's CBL (CBL), desperation and helplessness led to the October 4,
1996 election. However, we cannot agree with the
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 60

method they used to rectify years of inaction on their o Third, the purported election was not done by secret
part and thereby ease bottled-up frustrations, as such balloting, in violation of Section 6, Article IX of the
method was in total disregard of the UNION's CBL and UNION's CBL, as well as Article 241 (c) of the Labor
of due process. The end never justifies the means. Code.
• Whether the suspension of the provisions of the CBL of the o The foregoing infirmities considered, we cannot
UNION in that General Faculty Assembly is valid pursuant to the attribute grave abuse of discretion to Director Bitonio's
constitutional right of the Collective Bargaining Unit to engage finding and conclusion. In Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau
in "peaceful concerted activities" for the purpose of ousting the of Labor Relations, we invalidated the local union
corrupt regime of the private respondent elections held at the wrong date without prior notice to
o NO. We agree with the finding of Director Bitonio and members and conducted without regard for duly
Med-Arbiter Falconitin that the October 4, 1996 prescribed ground rules. We held that the proceedings
election was tainted with irregularities because of the were rendered void by the lack of due process --
following reasons. undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure
o First, the October 4, 1996 assembly was not called by integrity of the voting, and the absence of the notice of
the UNION. It was merely a convocation of faculty the dates of balloting.
clubs, as indicated in the memorandum sent to all • Whether the overwhelming ratification of the Collective
faculty members by Fr. Rodel Aligan, OP, the secretary Bargaining Agreement executed by the petitioners in behalf of
general of the University of Santo Tomas. It was not the UNION with the UST has rendered moot and academic the
convened in accordance with the provision on general issue as to the validity of the suspension of the CBL and the
membership meetings as found in the UNION's CBL, elections of October 4, 1996 in the General Faculty Assembly
which reads: "ARTICLE VIII-MEETINGS OF THE UNION o NO. The ratification of the new CBA executed between
"Section 1. The Union shall hold regular general the petitioners and the University of Santo Tomas
membership meetings at least once every three (3) management did not validate the void October 4,
months. Notices of the meeting shall be sent out by the 1996 election. Ratified were the terms of the new CBA,
Secretary-General at least ten (10) days prior to such not the issue of union leadership -- a matter that should
meetings by posting in conspicuous places, preferably be decided only by union members in the proper forum
inside Company premises, said notices. The date, time at the proper time and after observance of proper
and place for the meetings shall be determined by the procedures.
Board of Officers."
o Unquestionably, the assembly was not a union meeting. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the
It was in fact a gathering that was called and assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. So Ordered.
participated in by management and non-union
members. By no legal fiat was such assembly NOTES:
transformed into a union activity by the participation of Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine
some union members. Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right to form,
o Second, there was no commission on elections to join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective
oversee the election, as mandated by Sections 1 and 2 bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. Whether employed
of Article IX of the UNION's CBL. for a definite period or not, any employee shall be considered as such,
beginning on his first day of service, for purposes of membership in a
labor union. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 61

with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate
employee must, as a rule, not only signify the intent to become one, bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining.
but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure Specifically, the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain
for union membership is usually embodied in the union's CBL. An whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by
employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by which particular
concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes labor organization.
bound by the union's rules and regulations. In a certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate
Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies allegedly committed by bargaining unit can vote. Therefore, a union member who likewise
the respondents Marinoduring the latter's incumbency impelled the belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said
October 4, 1996 election of the new set of UNION officers. They assert election. However, the reverse is not always true; an employee
that such exercise was pursuant to their right to self-organization. belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a
Petitioners' frustration over the performance of private respondents, as member of the union cannot vote in the union election, unless
well as their fears of a "fraudulent" election to be held under the latter's otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the union.
supervision, could not justify the method they chose to impose their will Verily, union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union
on the union. Director Bitonio aptly elucidated: activity.
"The constitutional right to self-organization is better understood In both elections, there are procedures to be followed. Thus, the
in the context of ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom of October 4, 1996 election cannot properly be called a union election,
Association and Protection of Right to Organize), to which the because the procedure laid down in the UNION's CBL for the election
Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the Convention provides of officers was not followed. It could not have been a certification
that workers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their election either, because representation was not the issue, and the
constitution and rules and to elect their representatives in full proper procedure for such election was not followed. The
freedom, free from any interference from public authorities. participation of non-union members in the election aggravated its
The freedom conferred by the provision is expansive; the irregularity.
responsibility imposed on union members to respect the
constitution and rules they themselves draw up equally so. The
point to be stressed is that the union's CBL is the fundamental
law that governs the relationship between and among the
members of the union. It is where the rights, duties and
obligations, powers, functions and authority of the officers as
well as the members are defined. It is the organic law that
determines the validity of acts done by any officer or member
of the union. Without respect for the CBL, a union as a
democratic institution degenerates into nothing more than a 31. Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v DOLE Sec, Oriental Tin Can Workers
group of individuals governed by mob rule." Union Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
A union election is held pursuant to the union's constitution and G.R. No.116751, August 28, 1998
bylaws, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A Romero, J.
union election should be distinguished from a certification election, Digest by: INTIA
which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and
TOPIC: Necessity of Certification Election

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 62

• OTCLU: Filed MTD reiterating its position that the petition did not
DOCTRINE: comply with the 25% signature requirement and maintaining
• When there is issue as to who shall represent the employees that the new CBA was a bar to a certification election.
through presence of more than 1 Union, then it is best to have • DOLE: It issued a Certification of Registration of the CBA
Certification Election o It showed that the CBA b/w the Oriental Tin Can Co
FACTS: and OTCLU has the force and effect of law and
• Mar 3, 1994: Resp Oriental Tin Can Manufacturing Co. entered complied with the requirement
into a CBA with Pet Oriental Tin Can Labor Union (OTCLU) as • Med Arbiter: Dismissed the Petition for Certification election
the existing CBA was due to expire on April 15, 1994. filed by FFW
o 4 days later, 248 of the company’s rank-and-file o The petition was filed after the retractions was made
employees authorized the Oriental Tin Can Workers and thus the withdrawal of support to the petition of
Union Federation of Free Workers (FFW) (another union) the said 115 employees would make the signatories less
to file a petition for certification election. than 25%, that is required by law.
• March 10, 1994: The said petition was repudiated via a written • Upon appeal to DOLE by FFW: Reversed Med Arbiter Order;
waiver by 115 of the signatories. Petition for Certification Election should be conducted.
o And along with other employees totaling 897, ratified o CBA was concluded during the 60 freedom period of
the CBA on the same date. the old CBA.
• March 18, 1994: FFW filed a petition for certification election o Thus when the petition for cert election was filed, no
with the DOLE-NCR pursuant to Art 256 LC registered CBA in the establishment could be invoked
o It purports to represent the regular rank-and-file to pose as a bar to holding certification election.
employees of the company, as accompanied by the o SO, when the new CBA was registered, there was
authentic signatures of 25% of the employees/workers already a pending representation case (bec of the pet
in the bargaining unit. for cert election filed)
• OTCLU: It filed a manifestation and MTD of the petition for § Such new CBA cannot bar the election
certification election § In cases where there is a retraction or
o Ground: It was not endorsed by at least 25% of the withdrawal as in the present case, the best
employees of the bargaining unit. forum to determine whether there indeed such
o Some of the employees who initially signed the petition retractions is certification itself
had allegedly withdrawn in writing such support prior to • Hence the petition
the filing of the same.
• FFW: Filed a Reply: the retraction of support for the petition was ISSUE/S:
not verified under oath, thus no legal and binding effect. 13. WON Petition for Certification Election should be properly held
o It further asserted that the petition had the required
support of more than 25% of all the employees in the HELD: YES
bargaining unit. LEGAL BASIS:
• Oriental Tin Can Co.: Filed a Comment: the new CBA was • As provided in the Art 255 of Labor Code, it allows the majority
ratified by 897 out of the 1,020 R&F employees within the of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
bargaining unit. to designate or select the labor organization which shall be
their exclusive representative

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 63

o NOTE: This is an old case and that process is even • The mere filing of a petition for certification election within the
before filing for Pet for Certification Election. (I think the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order
equivalent of that now is the SEBA certification) for the holding of a certification election, subject to the
• However, when there is a presence of more than 1 Union in a submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable
bargaining unit aspiring to be employees representative, it can period from such filing.
ONLY be resolved by holding a certification election. • All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting
• The filing of petition for certification election by one of the two the holding of a certification election should be resolved by
unions in the bargaining unit is enough basis for the DOLE, to going through such procedure.
implement the law by directing the conduct of a certification • A certification election is the most effective and expeditious
election means of determining which labor organization can truly
o REASON: A petition for certification election is not represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit
necessary where the employees are one in their choice of the company.
of a representative in the bargaining process. • If the OTCLU wanted to be retained as the rank-and-file
§ The said provision of the Omnibus Rules employees bargaining representative, it should have sought
manifests the intent of the legislative authority to their vote, not engaged in legal sophistry.
allow, if not encourage, the contending unions
in a bargaining unit to hold a certification CONCLUSION: DISMISSES. Order by DOLE for conduction of Petition for
election during the freedom period Certification Election upheld
o Thus, the agreement prematurely signed by the union
and the company during the freedom period does not Side Issue: The employer cannot participate in the process of selection
affect the petition for certification election filed by by the employees of their representative. Law and policy demands
another union that employers take a strict hands-off stance in certification elections.
• With regard to the 25% support requirement, once the required Hence the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge the
percentage requirement has been reached, the employees same.
withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing The only instance when an employer may concern itself with
of the petition for certification election will not affect the employee representation activities is when it has to file the petition for
petition. On the contrary, the presumption arises that the certification election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it
withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress, was requested to bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of the
coercion or for a valuable consideration Labor Code.

APPLICATION:
• In consonance with the public policy that the holding of a
certification election is a certain and definitive mode of
arriving at the choice of the employees bargaining
representative, the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent
signatures upon the filing of the petition for certification
election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the 13. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary
determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. – G.R. No. 181531 | July 31, 2009
ONLY DIRECTORY Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 64

Digest by: OLLERO o 6 votes were segregated because the employees who
cast them were already occupying supervisory positions at the
TOPIC: Covered/Not covered employees – probationary employees time of the election.
o 5 votes were segregated on the ground that they were
DOCTRINE: cast by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing
In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such employees
appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are cannot vote.
entitled to vote. A certification election is the process of determining o But, the vote of one Jose Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an probationary employee, was counted.
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. The • Med-Arbiter: open 17 out of the 22 segregated votes, except
significance of an employee’s right to vote in a certification election the 5 votes of the probationary employees.
cannot thus be overemphasized. The provision in the CBA disqualifying • NUHWHRAIN-MPHC: Having garnered 151 votes, appealed to
probationary employees from voting cannot override the the SOLE arguing that the votes of the probationary employees
Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well should have been opened considering that probationary
as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on employee, Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. Also, respondent
certification elections and jurisprudence. HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes, should not be
immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening
FACTS: of the 17 segregated ballots would push the number of valid
• A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes
among the rank-and-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn which HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short of the
Manila Pavilion Hotel (Hotel) with the following results: majority which would then become 69.
EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS LIST = 353 • SOLE: Affirmed Med-Arbiter. The certification of HIMPHLU as the
TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346 exclusive bargaining agent was proper.
NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151 o pursuant to Section 5, Rule IX of the Omnibus Rules
HIMPHLU = 169 Implementing the Labor Code on exclusion and inclusion of
NO UNION = 1 voters in a certification election, the probationary employees
SPOILED = 3 cannot vote, as at the time the Med-Arbiter issued on August
SEGREGATED = 22 9, 2005 the Order granting the petition for the conduct of the
* National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied certification election, the six probationary employees were not
Industries Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) yet hired, hence, they could not vote.
* Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU) o Votes cast by the 11 dismissed employees, they could
• Since there was a significant number of segregated votes, be considered since their dismissal was still pending appeal.
contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and o Votes cast by the 6 alleged supervisory employees, the
respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union SOLE held that their votes should be counted since their
(HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide promotion took effect months after the issuance of the above-
which among those votes would be opened and tallied. said August 9, 2005 Order of the Med-Arbiter, hence, they were
o 11 votes were initially segregated because they were still considered as rank-and-file.
cast by dismissed employees (the legality of their dismissal was • MR denied by SOLE. Appeal to CA. It affirmed the ruling of the
still pending before the Court of Appeals.) SOLE. MR denied. Hence the case.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 65

and the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes
ISSUE/S: cast; Majority is 50% + 1.

1. Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the
certification elections should be allowed to vote? valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and
2. Whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate
be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent? bargaining unit.

HELD: Under the so-called “double majority rule,” for there to be a valid
certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted
1st Issue: AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes
Yes. The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was cast. From the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’
not questioned but because probationary employees have the right votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory
to vote in a certification election. The votes of the five other employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid
probationary employees should thus also have been counted. votes cast would increase—from 321 to 337.

Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, which Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
amended Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,
provides: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
Section 2. Who may join labor unions and workers' associations. – x x x WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 8,
For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, affirming the Resolutions dated January 22, 2007 and March 22, 2007,
be eligible for membership in any labor organization. X x x respectively, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in OS-A-9-52-
05 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Department of Labor and
The period of reckoning in determining who shall be included in the list Employment-Bureau of Labor Relations is DIRECTED to cause the
of eligible voters is in cases where a timely appeal has been filed from holding of a run-off election between petitioner, National Union of
the Order of the Med-Arbiter, the date when the Order of the Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion
Secretary of Labor and Employment, whether affirming or denying the Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday Inn Manila
appeal, becomes final and executory. Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).

The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from


voting cannot override the Constitutionally- protected right of workers
to self- organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence.
33. SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMMA CORPORATION
2nd issue: G.R. No. 167141, March 13, 2009
No. Under the so-called “double majority rule” for there to be a valid Ponente: Corona
certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted Digest by: DOLAR

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 66

TOPIC: Determination of Representation Status; Certification Election; • Imson also directed the holding of a certification election.
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping • Samma Corp. moved for reconsideration but the same was
denied.
DOCTRINE: The requirement of certificate of non-forum shopping is • Samma Corp. then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA,
inapplicable in petitions for certification election as such proceedings assailing the Jan. 17, 2003 Decision of the SOLE.
are non-adversarial and fact-finding in character. • The CA reversed the Decision of the SOLE. It held that Admin.
Circular No. 04-94 which required the filing of a certificate of
FACTS: non-forum shopping applied to petitions for certification
• Petitioner SAMMA-LIKHA filed a Petition for Certification election as well. The CA further ruled that SAMMA-LIKHA had
Election with the DOLE, Regional Office IV. In the petition, no legal standing to file the petition for certification election
Petitioner claimed, among other things, that it was a local because its members were a mixture of supervisory and rank-
chapter of the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor and-file employees (1 supervisory employee was erroneously
organization. included according to Petitioner).
• Respondent Samma Corp. moved for the dismissal of the
petition, arguing that: (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its ISSUE/S:
legal personality; (2) SAMMA-LIKHA failed to prove its existence 14. WON a certificate of non-forum shopping is required in a
as a local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the certificate of non- Petition for Certification Election - NO
forum shopping and (4) it had a prohibited mixture of 15. WON the SOLE erred in treating SAMMA-LIKHA’s MR as an
supervisory and rank-and-file employees. appeal - NO
• The Med-Arbiter dismissed the Petition on the following 16. WON SAMMA-LIKHA had legal personality to file the Petition for
grounds: (1) lack of legal personality for failure to attach the Certification Election -YES
certificate of registration purporting to show its legal
personality; (2) prohibited mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory employees and (3) failure to submit a certificate of HELD:
non-forum shopping. 1. No, because the requirement for a certificate of non-forum
• SAMMA-LIKHA moved for reconsideration. The RD forwarded shopping refers to complaints, counter-claims, cross-claims, petitions or
the case to the Sec. of Labor (SOLE). applications where contending parties litigate their respective
• Meanwhile, Samma Corp. filed a Petition for Cancellation of positions regarding the claim for relief of the complainant, claimant,
SAMMA-LIKHA’s union registration. petitioner or applicant. A certification proceeding, even though
o On April 14, 2003, the RD of the Regional Office issued a initiated by a petition, is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-
resolution revoking the charter certificate of SAMMA- adversarial and fact-finding character.
LIKHA as a local chapter on the ground of prohibited
mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. The requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping exists so as to
o SAMMA-LIKHA filed an MR on May 6, 2003. avoid multiplicity of suits. However, this scenario is unlikely to happen in
• On Jan. 17, 2003, Imson, the Acting SOLE, treated the MR as an petitions for certification election. The omnibus rules provide that
appeal and reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. Imson petitions for certification election are supposed to be filed with the
ruled that the legal personality of a union cannot be Regional Office which has jurisdiction over where the principal office
collaterally attacked and may only be questioned in an of the employer or where the bargaining unit is principally situated. It is
independent petition for cancellation of registration. further provided that where two or more petitions involving the same

(GO2) 2018 - 2019


[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 67

bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office, the same shall be which included the right to petition for a certification election. Further,
automatically consolidated. Hence, the filing of multiple suits and the the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based
possibility of conflicting decisions will rarely happen in such on the lack of legal personality of a labor organization are the
proceedings. Even if it does, it will be easy to discover. Thus, said following:
requirement is inapplicable. (a) petitioner is not listed by the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor
Relations in its registry of legitimate labor organizations; or
2. The MR was properly treated as an appeal because it substantially (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in
complied with the formal requisites of the latter. The lack of proof of accordance with the rules.
service was not fatal because Samma Corp. had actually received a
copy of the motion. Consequently, Samma Corp. had the opportunity As to the Petition for Cancellation filed by Samma Corp., the
to oppose the same. Thus, the SC finds that the demands of revocation of the charter certificate was issued on April 14, and the
substantial justice and due process were satisfied. MR was filed on May 6. Neither of the parties alleged that the
revocation of the charter certificate had attained finality. However,
It must be stressed that rules of procedure are interpreted liberally to SAMMA-LIKHA prayed for the reinstatement of its charter certificate in
secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action. They the instant case. Such reinstatement cannot be granted as this case
should not be applied if their application serves no useful purpose or stemmed from a petition for certification election, which is
hinders the just and speedy disposition of cases. Specifically, technical independent from the proceedings in the petition for cancellation of
rules and objections should not hamper the holding of a certification registration. If it can be shown that the charter certificate was revoked
election wherein employees are to select their bargaining with finality, Petitioner would not have the right to file the petition for
representative. A contrary rule will defeat the policy of the State to certification election. Lastly, Samma Corp. as employer had not right
promote the free and responsible exercise of the right to self- or material interest to assail the certification election. In such
organization through the establishment of a simplified mechanism for proceedings, the employer is a mere bystander.
the speedy registration of labor organizations and workers
associations, determination of representation status, and resolution of DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
intra and inter-union disputes. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Let the records of the
case be remanded to the office of origin, the Regional Office IV of the
3. As argued by SAMMA-LIKHA, 1 supervisory employee was Department of Labor and Employment, for determination of the status
erroneously included in the union of rank-and-file employees. This is not of petitioner’s legal personality. If petitioner is still a legitimate labor
a ground to impugn the legitimacy of a legitimate labor organization. organization, then said office shall conduct a certification election
subject to the usual pre-election conference.
LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under a
certificate of registration issued in its favor. Subsequently, SAMMA-
LIKHA, as its local chapter, was issued a charter certificate, clothing it
with limited legal personality.

Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral


attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation of certificate of registration. And unless such registration is
cancelled, they have all the rights of a legitimate labor organization,

(GO2) 2018 - 2019